Sneak Peek at Windows Server 2008

stinkymountain writes to tell us that NetworkWorld got their hands on Microsoft's latest addition to the server OS market and had a chance to poke around inside Windows Server 2008. It seems that the new release is a vast improvement over older versions in both security and performance but still lacking in several key areas. "There's even a minimalist installation called Windows Server Core that can run various server roles (such as DNS, DHCP, Active Directory components) but not applications (like SQL Server or IIS dynamic pages). It's otherwise a scripted host system for headless operations. There's no GUI front end to a Windows Server Core box, but it is managed by a command line interface (CLI), scripts, remotely via System Manager or other management applications that support Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), or by Remote Terminal Services. It's also a potential resource-slimmed substrate for Hyper-V and virtualization architectures."

Comments

Embedded Hardware

[Bryansix]

Do you think Windows Server Core will run on embedded hardware? That seems like the best place for something like this.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Possibly, though MS already offer XP and CE in the embedded space. For more info on that sort of thing read http://www.windowsfordevices.com/

Lightwight secure OSs are pretty handy for industrial applications like robotics etc, but Linux is making huge inroads there too mainly because of reduced footprint (== lower cost) and better network management.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[Tibor the Hun]

Absolutely, MS is well known for their lean, re-usable code which runs anything from watches, Zunes, XBOXes, Origami and mobile phones. It's a program once, use anywhere strategy that's been working quite well for them.

nice, the captcha is "exploit"
you got that right.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[EvilRyry]

I'm not quite sure whether your trying to be funny or not. You do realize that WinCE and NT don't share a whole lot in common, right?

Re:Embedded Hardware

[kpainter]

You do realize that WinCE and NT don't share a whole lot in common, right? If you don't count problems, you are correct.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[cheater512]

Yeah Linux can be crammed in to a much smaller space than Windows and space is a luxury when it comes to embedded devices.

I cant see Microsoft getting a foot hold unless a company makes a kind of embedded small business server box.
It would have to be cheap though.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[davidsyes]

But, businesses ARE embedded, umm, in bed, with microsoft. They just haven't processed the depths of penetrations...

Um, wait... hold that thought...

Re:Embedded Hardware

[hairyfeet]

I can testify to that. I changed out about 100 pickis units(don't know if it is the right spelling,it's a specialty medical inventory drawer) to make some extra cash for X-mas.The ones we changed out were 300Mhz running WinNT 4 and we swapped them out for WinXP Embedded with 1Ghz and 512Mb up from 64Mb.And while I would think a custom built Linux would probably work just as well,XP Embedded really was nice to work with,really easy to set up.And according to the nurses I would yak with on break the WinNT4 units were just as reliable and easy to use as could be,just slow. Of course I should probably mention I got 6 speaker sets and 6 headphone extenders as a bonus(can't have all the beeping in ICU,you know) but it really was a breeze to work with.I just wish I could have gotten one of those WinNT 4 embedded boards to play with,lol! And as always my 02c,YMMV.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[Device666]

Yeah and they also are very much into designer bugs. Because every software will eventually have bugs, it's best to design them first instead of creating them unintentionally.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

ou do realize that WinCE and NT don't share a whole lot in common, right?

If you don't count problems, you are correct.

And CE + ME + NT == CEMENT. Dense like a brick.

But there is Vista CEMENT. Even denser. Very CEMENT. ---- Posted anonymously, because M$ trolls are out like bats in Arkansas.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[Eddi3]

*Whoosh!*

Re:Embedded Hardware

[deranged unix nut]

WinCE and WinNT have WinME in common: Windows CE ME NT = Windows CEMENT

And who ever came up with the naming of WinCE? ...wince - ouch!

Re:Embedded Hardware

[petermgreen]

It really depends what you count as embedded. Some vendors already offer nas soloutions based on windows server 2003. Of course the only real difference between theese and more conventional low end servers is the admin tools and the licensing model.

Running on systems that aren't based on x86,x64 or itanium seems unlikely.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[LifesABeach]

I could not help but think, what Stack names windows would use. Considering LAMP means Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. Windows could use, Windows, IIS, SqlServer, and .NET or "WIS."? Tragically, it kind of makes sense.

Re:Embedded Hardware

[Unordained]

Pyxis medication dispensers, perhaps?
http://www.cardinal.com/us/en/providers/products/pyxis/products/medStation3500/index.asp

Re:Embedded Hardware

[hairyfeet]

Thank you,and you are correct,even so far as to whom I was subcontracted to (Cardinal Health).Although the one I was installing wasn't the med station,but rather the one used in the giant dispensers for items such as surgical gloves,baby bottles,etc. Really broke my heart to see so many kids in horrible shape,but the nurses were really wonderful.And if anyone gets a chance to work with them the guys at Cardinal were the best coworkers I'd had in years.Even gave me an extra four hours on my timecard for staying an hour over to help them clean up on the final day.Great bunch of guys.

Great ideas but late to the party

[davidwr]

These are all great ideas but I would've liked to have seen them a decade or more ago.

Even so, better late than never.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Krondor]

Powershell (Bash), XML Based IIS config (apache .conf), Hyper-V (Xen), GUI less installs (init 3 (or 2 on some systems))...

Hey Microsoft, Linux, BSD, etc... called they want their ideas back! Actually though I'm really glad to see this stuff. It really is a step in the right direction, and even if it isn't my platform of choice, a good idea is a good idea.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[masticina]

Yeah I mean geeh how renewing the idea of a small core and running different layers of applications on it. Anyhow atleast for Microsoft it is a huge move that somehow they we're able to cut allot of slack and somehow did go modular.

To little to late? Very Probable!

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[MightyMartian]

Oh fuck, XML configs. Let's take human-readable text and turn it into XML, thus destroying its readability.

Is there something wrong with conf and ini files? Did the gods come down and declare that configurations must be system-locked registry hives, binary or XML (which is nearly as bad) files?

I wish every system/OS programmer that came out using the latest fad file format was beaten half to death, then given one final chance to amend their ways before they were taken and thrown off a minimum thirty storey building.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Krondor]

Oh fuck, XML configs. Let's take human-readable text and turn it into XML, thus destroying its readability.

While I agree with you, I think MS wasn't thinking of humans reading and editing the XML by hand. They were undoubtedly expecting people to use the IIS Manager and it's probably easier for the programmers to generate the configs out of IIS Manager if it is a structured format like XML. Harder to systematically generate .conf if you don't know about neat things like Perl Config::General I suppose.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Sparks23]

In fairness, reusing XML for any sort of structured configuration file (heavy emphasis on the 'structured') is just the simplest approach when you already have code to parse XML in the program. Otherwise, you have to reinvent the wheel (because doing structured data that has any sort of nesting more than one level deep in .ini/.conf type files is a royal pain).

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Enleth]

And how do you, exactly, express a complex, hierarchical configuration (as is often needed for real servers, not your typical home *NIX box serving your e-mail) in an unambigious, standard, predictable, system-independent way using ini files? Sooner or later, you will end up with an unloved, messy bastard child of ini and something XML-esque in its nature, if not looks. And it'll be even worse than a well-known evil you can deal with easily.

Sure, more often than not, XML is an overkill, but sometimes there's no better way in the long run. Really, any extreme point of view is bad, pro- or anti-XML alike. So, know your enemy and be prepared to admit his strengths, for he has them regardless of what you think.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[MightyMartian]

Just have include-style syntax like Apache does. You can configure pretty damned complex Apache server installs without needing to use all-but-unreadable xml files. I admit to trolling a bit in the last post, and am not saying that XML does not have its place, but so far as I'm concerned, it's an incredibly abused technology that renders the notion of plain text readability null and void. The idea of a conf file is that you can telnet/ssh into a server with a decent terminal emulator and work on the server. Admittedly XML configuration files solve one part of the problem, in that you can easily backup working configurations, make alterations, and if they explode, you can quickly get the server back to its previous working state. However, it's just horrific if you need to edit configurations in all but the most simplistic situations.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[ozmanjusri]

Let's take human-readable text and turn it into XML, thus destroying its readability.

There's no such thing as human-readable text on computers, just different tools for representing sets of 1s and 0s.

I know you're referring to ascii or equivalent text editors, but the point of XML is that you can represent hierarchical data in a way that can be parsed by an app which is aware of the conventions, no matter what platform or provider it's from.

There are plenty of XML editing modes for Emacs, for example, that would allow you to conveniently edit these MS config files.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[aztracker1]

I always thought of apache config files as a psuedo-xml markup anyways with some god forsaken abundance of options that usually aren't needed, and would love a nice gui tool for apache similar to the IIS msc configuration tool... I know that tools such as webmin, plesk and other tools are available, but nothing that is a simple apache-only tool...

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[0kComputer]

Oh fuck, XML configs. Let's take human-readable text and turn it into XML, thus destroying its readability. Is there something wrong with conf and ini files? Did the gods come down and declare that configurations must be system-locked registry hives, binary or XML (which is nearly as bad) files? I wish every system/OS programmer that came out using the latest fad file format was beaten half to death, then given one final chance to amend their ways before they were taken and thrown off a minimum thirty storey building.
I know you're trolling, but I'll bite. I'd hardly call XML a fad format or hard to read. XML is supposed to be self describing, I'd take a reasonably well put together xml config over an ini file any day of the week. Also, if you want to write an app to parse it or transform it using xslt or equiv language, its quite trival. Also, considering the XML standard has remained pretty much unchanged over the last 10 years, I'd hardly call it a "fad", quite the opposite in fact. Very few specs can claim to have this kind of longevity.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[atamido]

Indeed. Using Apache config files as an example of good config file structuring is like describing limb amputation as a good weight loss method. It works, but there are much better ways. One of the biggest drawbacks of Linux config files is that they all have their own particular syntax, so knowing one tells you little about the syntax of other config files you encounter.

XML shares some of the same benefits and drawbacks of the Windows registry. The big drawback is you can't easily edit it by hand or output simple text. On the plus side is using a program that understands the file's structure, you always have the syntax correct.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[GreatBunzinni]

And how do you, exactly, express a complex, hierarchical configuration (as is often needed for real servers, not your typical home *NIX box serving your e-mail) in an unambigious, standard, predictable, system-independent way using ini files?

You mean, like YAML? Granted, it isn't a ISO standard (yet?) but that hasn't stopped microsoft nor anyone from using INI files for the past... twenty years?

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[V!NCENT]

They are actualy going to ship Win Server 2008 with a CLI and GNU tools? Well goodbye Microsoft: once the MS Certifeid jokes learn all that stuff then there is no point in still doing Windows.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Raphael Emportu]

Don't threaten them with callbacks, rather explain that they can use it for free and sell it anyway ;-P. No more research department. They only thing they will still need are the crappy call centers. And maybe, just maybe they will be able to invite Linus to do one of there presentations right for once. You know without that clown jumping around or there examples server crashing :-)

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Raphael Emportu]

BTW would this be patentable? Adopting Open software model to replace your current propriatory one? Where can I file? All rights reserved 2008 Raphael Emportu.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, just shut up and learn to program, and by learn to program I mean that you should really sit down for 15 years and actually understand the vast amount of issues that developers face. Once you do that you will realize that there are many more advantages to having stupid people like you bitching than having mega corporations breathing down your throat because your piece of crap software is impossible to automate (aka test/deploy) and is ridden with parsing bugs and lacking on features.

I don't care what language you specialize in nor the OS you focus on, anyone worth their weight in dog shit will know that you can still use sed to make changes to your xml files or write a pretty UI for the business types to do this for you.

Posted anonymously because I don't normally flame, you just hit a very large red button on my forehead.
--
Just because you are smart doesn't mean you aren't stupid.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[ajs318]

These are all great ideas but I would've liked to have seen them a decade or more ago.

Unix already had them a decade or more ago.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, its me again, reading further into how much I really believe you don't understand the reasons to add additional layers between humans and computers. First off computers don't make mistakes, humans do. Secondly the idea of the include style syntax doesn't solve any problems other than encapsulation, which is taken care of in xml with the XInclude standard. More importantly it doesn't matter how modify configuration on any type of server, you backup everything no matter what. That is where the idea of configuration management comes from. If you have 2 servers you don't really care, but if you get into enterprise environments and haven't planned configuration management into your infrastructure design you have already failed. XML doesn't solve the part of the problem that you have mentioned, you can backup any file type as long as you can read it. You can also restore it as long as you can write to the destination. The file format matters just about as much as the brand of keyboard you are using.

If I was to write a web server and had to deal with zealots like you in my use cases, there would be a separate layer that converts your "human that doesn't really understand the system they are configuring" configuration file into an xml format that the web server would actually consume.

Understand where technology can help you or bite you in the ass, but don't shoot ideas down because you don't understand how they can be used. If they don't work in your use case that is fine, accept that and know that you are going to be an edge case as seen by the designers of said system.
--
Give a man a program and frustrate him for a day, teach him to program and frustrate him for life.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[NotZed]

Umm, ini files are not human readable - they are really fucked at as soon as you need more than a few simple key-value pairs.

Programmers use xml because it saves them the hassle of writing a robust config file parser. Well it saves them writing the actual text parsing part at least - you still have to write a parser. It's mostly a quick and lazy solution that is rarely designed properly anyway so it often makes things worse.

Plus now you need to know a whole new 'xml format' for every bloody application, add in namespacing and funky entity encoding rules and it isn't very human readable either.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[CarpetShark]

XML is still horrible though. I'd much prefer a (somewhat) latex-like \command([arg1[,...argN]]) { block } system. Braces are so much less verbose than end tags.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[TheRaven64]

I think Sun and IBM have some prior art...

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[MickDownUnder]

XML was a fad probably about 11 years ago.

Today XML is the ubiquitous standard for flat file data storage, and as such it has LOTS and LOTS of tools and software that leverage it.

I can't think of two many things stupider than a developer designing a new non-xml text based flat file for data storage in todays day and age would be someone who thinks XML is not human readable. I think only persons possibly stupider than that are the moderators who rated your ridiculous rant as insightful.

If slashdot was half honest, they'd have another rating which is something like

Lacking
all
merit
except

it

antagonises
Microsoft

In which case you might have been rated +5 LameIam.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Barsteward]

I'll second that, using the latest fad in the most inappropriate way. Is there an IT equivalent of the Darwin Awards for the most stupid ideas i.e. XML for Config files? All entrants would be hung by their gonads (or whatever is necessary to make their eyes water) from a very high building until they saw the error of their ways.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[plague3106]

Let's take human-readable text and turn it into XML, thus destroying its readability.

Huh? How is it not readable? Ever hear of a color coding Xml editor? Xml is great for configuration because 1) you CAN edit it with a text editor and 2) the code to parse xml is everywhere and so the machine can easily parse it as well.

Enough with the Xml is crap posts.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[petermgreen]

As a way of marking up text with formatting and structural information html and similar xml schemas rock. But if you try to use them for other things you tend to end up with more markup than text and a file that is almost unreadable.

One possibility would be to use XML for handling the tree but store the bottom level values as name=value pairs in the body text. That way you could leverage an xml parser for most of the work while giving a far more readable file (similar to the apache configuration file).

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can argue that the filesystem is not really platform independent. But there are ways to
abstract oneself away from those / or \ C:/ etc... so why not use subdirectories to provide
the needed hierarchy plus plain ini files?

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[ostiguy]

MS is taking Windows down a path for developers at the expense of system administrators. XML files? Powershell (a truly bizarre object oriented environment)?

I want to be able to edit config files in notepad - not have to find a text editor that highlights XML syntax.
If I wanted to learn a scripting oriented programming language, I'd learn one used elsewhere (perl, vbscript, php, etc) in real applications, not some new take on old ideas.

ostiguy

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[MightyMartian]

Precisely my point. Just because XML is ASCII text does not mean it's not a machine-readable format. Yes, conf files and ini files are not perfect, and there are configuration situations where they don't work very well, but if you're talking about the ease of going through a configuration file, especially a well-commented one, with the text editor of your choice, from vi right up to Emacs, then nothing beats them.

I suppose it's whatever your comfortable with, but I've seen Apache configs that, while a pain in the ass, are readable, that would be rendered all-but-impossible to manipulate via a text editor due to their size.

Putting everything in a CLI is a great step forward, but using XML makes it pretty pointless. For chrissakes, I don't know why they just don't bite the fucking bullet, get rid of CMD.EXE and use bash. Yeah, it's a *nix tool, which I realize causes Steve Ballmer to break out in hives, but why does Microsoft always do things differently simply for difference's sake?

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Anonymous Coward]

Powershell is object oriented, bash isn't. No stealing of ideas there.
The IIS 7 config file now allows you to make changes to the configuration without needing to restart the server, IIRC Apache still needs to have its daemon restarted.

Also, note that Microsoft did Unix (Anyone remember Xenix?) way back before the was a Linux, so, other than right out of your arse, I don't know where you get this whole "idea stealing" thing.

That aside, I find it funny how when Microsoft impliments an idea existing elsewhere it's called ripping someone off, but when some OSS project, or OSS-friendly company gets burned by patent violations (because the idea exists elsewhere), it's bloody murder, and the patent holder is evil. Roight.

Do as we say, not as we do?

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[Krondor]

I think you missed my comment's point.. I was actually complementing MS for implementing some smart ideas and kind of jesting that it took them long enough! Anyway not to feed the trolls but;

Powershell is object oriented, bash isn't. No stealing of ideas there.

Yes, but I was really just trying to say, "YES! Finally a capable shell!" If you want OO paradigm for scripting in Linux it's not like you're stuck with Bash.. See Perl; Python; Etc..

The IIS 7 config file now allows you to make changes to the configuration without needing to restart the server, IIRC Apache still needs to have its daemon restarted.

Not true! Apache's graceful restart will finish serving the current request with each thread and then restart that thread picking up the new config. I'm not sure but I would imagine that is how IIS would have to do it. You can't very well load a new config in mid HTTP request.

apachectl -k graceful

Also, note that Microsoft did Unix (Anyone remember Xenix?) way back before the was a Linux, so, other than right out of your arse, I don't know where you get this whole "idea stealing" thing.

Umm ATT Bell Labs did it before MS and Linux was based on that paradigm. And no, lol no one remembers Xenix...

That aside, I find it funny how when Microsoft impliments an idea existing elsewhere it's called ripping someone off, but when some OSS project, or OSS-friendly company gets burned by patent violations (because the idea exists elsewhere), it's bloody murder, and the patent holder is evil. Roight.

Wow way to take offense to a comment that was meant more as a WAY TO GO MS then a MAN MS YOU STEAL! So what company or idea has been burned by patent violations so far? Name an example, because last I looked MS hasn't filed any violations and SCO lost. As for my own, not a lawyer, personal opinion the software patent system is definitely flawed... so then there's that of course.

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[spazzmo]

First off computers don't make mistakes, humans do. You've obviously never seen an overheating piece of electronics lose it's tiny mind...

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[gravis777]

I agree, I am actually surprised one of the tags on this article is not suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

Re:Great ideas but late to the party

[darthflo]

The answer is YAML. Human-readable, lean, easily parsed, somewhat integrated.

They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Joe The Dragon]

so you add or remove / trun it on or off at any time with out havening to reinstall widnows server.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Penguinisto]

so you add or remove / trun it on or off at any time with out havening to reinstall widnows server.

Err, on a server, why would you want to? (okay, so I'm one of those freaks who insist on running his servers at runlevel 3, but still... serious non-trolling question here: why?)

/P

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[malkavian]

Hmmm.. Just like Windows 3.11!

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Your use of havening intrigues me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[mstra]

Clearly George finally found his way to Slashdot!

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[brezel]

so you add or remove / trun it on or off at any time with out havening to reinstall widnows server.

Err, on a server, why would you want to? (okay, so I'm one of those freaks who insist on running his servers at runlevel 3, but still... serious non-trolling question here: why?)

/P

probably because windows still has no ssh/xforwarding support? i don't know, i'm just guessing ^^

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Max Littlemore]

Well, I've always said that Windows 3.11 was at least as good on the server as anything else they've released.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Joe The Dragon]

trun it on to do updates, change setting, check out how its running, add / remove stuff, etc. Then trun off the GUI when you are done.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Alpha830RulZ]

Because the window based tools are often easier to use than the equivalent command line tools. They make it easier to figure out some rarely performed tasks (eg., DNS configuration, for me). I have Gnome set up on all my Linux boxes for this reason. I know, I won't get many SuperGeek points, but it works for me.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[sumdumass]

Well, not to mention that some programs that require windows server can only be configured with a GUI. Without one, it would make them pretty hard to install and setup.

I don't know why they reqire a GUI on a server. I have always found it odd when I would have to update a graphic card driver (and in one instance, replace it) to run server software with enough "colors" when the config and instal is the only thing that uses the GUI. Presumably, these pices of software would be updated to work in this mode but it would probably end up costing.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[skiman1979]

I'm with you on this one. A GUI isn't needed on a server. GUIs just add an extra layer of potential security problems by running extra code that is not needed. If anything, make the GUI a service you can turn on and off like the grandparent said similar to X windows. Leave the GUI off for normal operation, but it's there for those occasions you might want or need it.

Re:They should make the GUI part like X windows

[Penguinisto]

trun it on to do updates, change setting, check out how its running, add / remove stuff, etc. Then trun off the GUI when you are done.

One would hope this CLI version of 'doze would have something akin to yum or YOU...

In *nix, I can check the health of a machine instantly with top, and use iftop and mysqltop for network and DB health checks.

'course, I'm lazy so I chuck it all into SNMP/Cacti and eyeball a whole bunch of servers remotely via a web page.

/P

what about DX10/game performance?

[Anonymous Coward]

anybody know?

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[LiquidCoooled]

Do we wait for service pack 2 or 3 nowadays?

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[urbanriot]

I don't see why. Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 first releases were perfectly fine in their own right, pre-SP1.

Do we wait for service pack 2 or 3 nowadays?

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[secPM_MS]

I have found server 2K8 to be stable and reliable. I have been running a beta version on my notebook since Vista Beta 1. It runs well, uses modest resources (it even runs well on a Dell Dimension 610 notebook running in maximum battery life mode with the index server running). Unless you install the desktop experience package, you do not get the media player.

When you install server, you are given the choice of server core or standard server. Assuming you choose standard server, it installs server with a basic core of functionality. Then in server manager you add only those roles and features that you want for your system. For my notebook, I added the wireless feature and the search indexer, which is under the file server role.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[ld a,b]

Amen, if Microsoft would just release a Server Lite(Windows 2000 Pro) version of their Server systems(NT, 2000, 2003, 2008) instead of the mainstream(95, 98, XP, Vista) crap, nobody with a right mind would be using Linux on their desktops. Did you notice how MS doesn't include their theme bullshit in their Server OSes? GTK, QT, X, Compiz? Sorry, but I don't think their codebases can stand a chance against the Windows GUI. Sure you can lookalike, but for x features you have 2^x size and bugs.
I like free, but if I can have better, I'm not gonna die for my ideals.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[cheater512]

Wait. It features optional wireless support and search indexing?

Wtf? I thought it was a server OS.
What does Microsoft think a server is? Admins cant find a config file so they need to search for it?

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[joe_adk]

Well, he did say that it was under the file server options. A wireless fileserver with search indexing doesn't sound all that odd.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[afidel]

It's under the file server role, it's for when your idiot user moves their files and forget where they put them or can't remember the name of the file they wrote 4 years ago to that guy. It's the stuff I get calls for way too often and having an indexer that works and doesn't crush the performance of the system would be great. Of course I've yet to test it on something like my 1.2TB fileserver so I don't know how good it really is =) I'll get there after I clear the backlog of 20 server refreshes and 4 projects from last year...

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[RalphSleigh]

Yes, a server OS, so having wireless and disk indexing optional sounds like a good idea, as you would seldom need either for many sever roles. Unless ofcourse you thought it should be more like linux and just have no wireless support at all.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[cheater512]

It doesnt seem odd until you think about a datacenter rack.
Then its just wtf?

Linux comes with slocate usually out of the box. Its deliberately disabled for production servers.
And I highly doubt that Microsoft has managed to beat slocate when it comes to speed.

That means you'll have a bloaty piece of crap indexing all your files all the time along with your antivirus program.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[davidpack01]

Actually I'm pretty sure they still include all the theme stuff, it's just turned off by default.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wtf? You don't HAVE to install it on your rack server. MS has this funny idea that some of their servers aren't in racks because... that's reality. That's why it's a good idea to let you install it or not as the case may be for the way you are using the OS.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[secPM_MS]

It is a server OS, a very nice one. It has been optimized for throughput, not responsiveness, but despite that, it makes a very robust client without a lot of bloat.

As for search indexing, it is a minor feature under the file server role, where it is clearly intended to support indexed access to large data stores. I use the search indexer on an old XP system I loaded Vista on to to conduct text searches against > 150 GBytes of source code.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[cheater512]

I've only ever heard of a single server with wireless support running ever.
And even then it was because of a obscure network configuration and wasnt used much.

If there is a option for it then it means that they havent completely removed it.
All the low level code is still there.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[wild_berry]

Windows Server 2008 will call itself SP1 from the get-go [1] [2]. That may provide one reason to wait for SP2 or SP3.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080218-windows-server-2008-will-ship-with-sp1-installed.html
[2] http://blogs.msdn.com/iainmcdonald/archive/2008/02/15/windows-server-2008-is-called-sp1-adventures-in-doing-things-right.aspx

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[Z34107]

Wtf? I thought it was a server OS. What does Microsoft think a server is? Admins cant find a config file so they need to search for it?

I've worked with Windows Server 2003 and a beta of "Longhorn Server" a number of years ago (pretty much the same thing.)

They do know what a server is, which is why the "desktop experience" crap is turned off by default (Aero, DirectX, video drivers, etc.) Same goes for wireless.

I don't know if things have changed since then, but all the default install got you was a "start" menu, in the Windows 95 sense of the word. You went into your config screen and added "roles" if you wanted to route e-mail, be a domain controller, etc.

BUT... there are a lot of people out there who use Windows server editions just for desktop work, because they tend to be smaller and more stable - the "really good" editions. An expensive solution, sure, but whatever floats your boat.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a option for it then it means that they havent completely removed it.
All the low level code is still there.

This is like saying if there is an option to install Firefox that there must be low level Firefox code as well.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[umrguy76]

Admins cant find a config file so they need to search for it?

Yes, when I am managing more than the three servers in my basement I do like slocate.

Re:what about DX10/game performance?

[cheater512]

Windows cant dynamically change its kernel.
That means that all the low level code for wifi is running regardless of the option.

So command line now?

[pembo13]

I thought people who prefer Windows tended to like command lines,which would explain they preference in OS and why Linux is so often lambasted as being geeky.

Re:So command line now?

[ianare]

I think you may have that the other way around, usually win admins like 'next'->'next'->'next' type stuff.
Also, many modern linux distros do have GUI tools for various admin tasks, though they much less powerful than the equivalent CLI.

Re:So command line now?

[dedazo]

No, not really. Most good admins that manage Windows servers tend to use the Win32 console as much as possible. A great majority of them finally picked up on what WMI can do and actually took advantage of it.

I'd think that if Linux is "lambasted" for being geeky it's because users need to do certain things with it, whereas most Windows users rarely ever open a console window.

The number of things that you need to do with bash on any Linux distro have decidedly decreased in the past few years, so I doubt the label is really applicable anymore. Perhaps the problem is that a lot of the problem-solving advice you can find online for distros like Ubuntu tend to use command line solutions, which is predictable if those solutions are being provided by more knowledgeable people who don't have a problem using the console to begin with.

I played with some of the early betas and Server 2008 is actually quite cool. The fact that most everything is now scriptable (the subset that wasn't before through WMI, at least, or the things that have been simplified) is a life saver, and the switching of server roles is very useful when you want to re-task a box quickly for whatever reason. Hosting companies will probably love it.

I think the important thing about 2008 is that it gives you the option to use a character-based environment, and it gives you a very good one at that (PowerShell). If you feel more comfortable with the GUI tools, they're all still there.

Re:So command line now?

[Jugalator]

I thought people who prefer Windows tended to like command lines,which would explain they preference in OS and why Linux is so often lambasted as being geeky. They aren't taking away the UI.

Since command lines is more "geeky", but also often more powerful, they're now including this.

By providing this choice, they're trying to approach broader markets.

Doesn't seem confusing, strange, a bad idea, or anything like that. It's a good idea in all aspects I can think of.

Re:So command line now?

[QuantumRiff]

I think the important thing about 2008 is that it gives you the option to use a character-based environment, and it gives you a very good one at that (PowerShell). If you feel more comfortable with the GUI tools, they're all still there.

How sad indeed that Powershell will not run on Server Core. Neither (as far as I've seen) will IIS or SQL. I would love to see a DB Server as close to bare hardware as possible for performance reasons! But really, no PowerShell on their brand new Server SKU? That is just stupid.

Re:So command line now?

[cheater512]

Yet often they are still far superior to Window's GUIs.
E.g. Swat has far more features than Windows supports when it comes to file sharing.

Re:So command line now?

[outcast36]

You are correct that their awesome new object based command environment does not run on the core install. I agree this is pretty weak. You can run IIS, but it is a stripped down version without any sort of dynamic content.

Re:So command line now?

[afidel]

Yeah it's almost criminal since they still don't have a good object serialization method implemented to interact with remote objects so you really need to run the scripts where they are manipulating the objects. I started to really like powershell until I realized that I would have to install the environment on all the servers I wanted to script and would still have to use something like psexec to run them, why not just continue to use WMI and batch scripting? Oh and the memory overhead for dealing with large numbers of objects kind of limited its use in large environments unless you are very careful about how you write your code.

Re:So command line now?

[coredog64]

IIS runs on server core.

Currenly the .NET Framework is not on Server Core, which means ASP.NET is currently not available. This is something the .NET team wants to add and we're working on adding it as soon as possible. Classic ASP works just fine, and with the new FastCGI support, PHP also runs great on Server Core.

http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2007/06/04/iis7-on-server-core.aspx

Re:So command line now?

[Just Some Guy]

Perhaps the problem is that a lot of the problem-solving advice you can find online for distros like Ubuntu tend to use command line solutions, which is predictable if those solutions are being provided by more knowledgeable people who don't have a problem using the console to begin with.

That's because it's a lot easier to tell a quesion-asker to run

$ sudo /etc/rc.d/sshd restart

than to walk them through "open the control panel, click 'Sound Themes' then 'Color Editor', go to the 'Remote Widgets and Printing' tab, look for the 'Allow Zebras' checkbox, uncheck it, click apply, re-check it, click apply again, then close the window." Plus, users get it in their shell history so they can run it again without bookmarking the forum page and stepping through the instructions again.

Command line interfaces aren't just "lower level". They allow a different kind of expressivness which lends itself very well to certain tasks. Routine administration is very often that sweet spot.

Re:So command line now?

[staid03]

I got the sarcasm. No-one else seems to have.

Re:So command line now?

[Mista2]

The problems with IIS etc is not that they wont run without a GUI, they just cant install becuase the installation requires the GUI. No with Nix and Netware, startx would load a GUI for their installs, then it could be unloaded. Why not have all the explorer interface ready to run but not in memory unless called. Sort of "Safemode" but with all services running normally. I cant remember he last time I actually had to log into one of our AD or IIS servers to do anything during normal admin.

Re:So command line now?

[cnettel]

They support terminal services, from what I can see. The real issue is that .NET is not supported, with all the dependencies that might mean. No .NET means no ASP.NET, no fancy SQL Server features, no PowerShell.

Re:So command line now?

[ocbwilg]

Powershell requires the .NET Framework, which won't run on Server Core. IIS will run on Server Core, but only static pages because (guess why!) .NET Framework won't run on Server Core. The single biggest reason for Server Core's existence is to provide a slimmed-down platform for Hyper-V to run on, much like VMWare uses a slimmed down "custom kernel" that looks suspiciously like a stripped down RedHat install to run their virtualization on. Anything else is being discouraged.

BTW, it's not as stripped down as they would lead you to believe. You still have the graphical login screen, which dumps you to a screen witha blue background and a little CMD.EXE box in the middle of it. The Remote Terminal Services management that they talk about for Server Core does the same thing. And while you can configure it completely from the command line, if you're clever enough to know the names of the control panel applets (they end in .CPL) you can invoke them from the command line. So instead of using DATE and TIME to set the time and date, you can use CONTROL DATETIME to get a nice GUI for it. Same goes with setting language and regional/keyboard settings, and many other settings. NOTEPAD.EXE still gets you the same GUI notepad application too, and I'm sure that there are plenty more.

Re:So command line now?

[framauro13]

That's because it's a lot easier to tell a quesion-asker to run

$ sudo /etc/rc.d/sshd restart It depends. Are you telling me to do this, or my grandmother. It might take longer to explain the GUI way, but it's much easier for a less technical person to understand than what 'sudo' means, what command line arguments are, and why they have to do it via the console instead of the "simpler" GUI way that probably makes more sense to them.

Re:So command line now?

[dave420]

You can also do this on windows, if you have OpenSSH installed:

net stop opensshd
net start opensshd

Windows Server, and indeed on the desktop, allows you two ways of doing things - clicky/pointy/pretty way, and CLI. I use the CLI a lot when I'm using Windows - it's fast, and as you say, has other benefits as well.

Re:So command line now?

[Just Some Guy]

It depends. Are you telling me to do this, or my grandmother.

My mother-in-law. She's pretty smart but has next to no experience with computers. I've had to walk her through getting her system online enough for me to SSH into it to fix things (because it was on dodgy hardware, and for quite a while she'd shut it down by holding the power button until it dropped power). Especially when I'm not in front of an identically configured system, I'd infinitely rather tell her to open Konsole and type these three lines correctly than try to remember what the KDE 3.2 control center called something vital.

Re:So command line now?

[Just Some Guy]

Windows Server, and indeed on the desktop, allows you two ways of doing things - clicky/pointy/pretty way, and CLI. I use the CLI a lot when I'm using Windows - it's fast, and as you say, has other benefits as well.

Out of curiosity, what's the "normal" way to connect into a Windows box to get a command line? I'm pretty sure they don't ship with OpenSSH by default, so is it part of RDP or the management console?

Re:So command line now?

[0racle]

much like VMWare uses a slimmed down "custom kernel" that looks suspiciously like a stripped down RedHat install to run their virtualization on

Just a little nitpick, but no it doesn't. You never 'see' the hypervisor (vmkernel), you see a local console that pretty much runs like a guest. That is based on a Red Hat release, vmkernel is not.

Re:So command line now?

[BrianGKUAC]

Command line is much better for instruction-based fixes because it's a simple command or two.

Walking someone through a GUI is much better for education-based interactive fixes, because it has a context, and therefore does a better job of teaching why something wasn't working.

Which you choose should depend on what kind of techie you are, and what kind of person you're working with. My grandmother is never going to care or even want to know why she can't connect to the Internet, so I'll just tell her what to type. My inquisitive little sister wants to know everything, so I'll go through the process of showing her where to go and what to change, while explaining what an IP address is. My friend Cory is a bit of a Windows geek, so he knows the principles... I'll show him both ways, then teach him how to check his system's status, so he'll know when to apply that fix again, if needed.

Re:So command line now?

[ZERO1ZERO]

Telnet, isn't it? I installed cygwin/sshd which gives me remote shell, and I can use WinSCP to get a remote GUI of my FS.

Re:So command line now?

[ZERO1ZERO]

Nice Post.

Re:So command line now?

[ocbwilg]

Just a little nitpick, but no it doesn't. You never 'see' the hypervisor (vmkernel), you see a local console that pretty much runs like a guest. That is based on a Red Hat release, vmkernel is not.

You can tell who drinks the VMWare kool-aid around here. Not for nothing, but the console looks like Red Hat. The commands used to configure the kernel are linux commands. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're going to have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that it isn't a duck.

But more to the point, I can take a Linux kernel and modify it however I want and call it something else entirely...vmkernel, bobskernel, whatever. That doesn't mean it's not a Linux derivative. To this day I've never heard a VMWare representative explain how their vmkernel isn't linux-based, or how it differs. All I've ever heard them say is that it's not linux. Methinks the company doth protest too much, but regardless, when I talk about it I always say that it's not linux. But I do so with a nudge and a wink.

Re:So command line now?

[Julian352]

Have you looked at PowerShell V2 CTP? It seems that remote administration has been the focus of that release.

Mod parent flameba.....

[davidwr]

Oh wait, too late.

Um... how about "insightful" instead???

Re:Mod parent flameba.....

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Better, perhaps, to mod GP "flambe"?

those who do not understand unix are.....

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I guess imitation is the best form of flattery

Re:those who do not understand unix are.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure just ask any Mainframer or VAX person, they have the same complaint about all Linux and Unix flavors

um yeah

[ILuvRamen]

...a vast improvement over older versions in both security and performance but still lacking in several key areas.

Number one being it costs more than my car.

Re:um yeah

[Penguinisto]

...a vast improvement over older versions in both security and performance but still lacking in several key areas.

Number one being it costs more than my car.

Number two being that it most likely still relies on that crap Registry schema for all of its settings.

/P

Re:um yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a ridiculously shitty car.

Re:um yeah

[Jugalator]

Number two being that it most likely still relies on that crap Registry schema for all of its settings. At least it can now navigate and modify the registry like it was a file system, thanks to the (admittedly ridiculously named) Windows PowerShell.

Also, here's a video interview with the Vista kernel team on the topic of the Windows Registry among other things, and why it has remained.

Re:um yeah

[Jugalator]

Btw, the "registry as a file system" (similar to the architecture Linux uses for all sorts of abstract "devices") is a documented API one can write own "providers" for.

Re:um yeah

[Penguinisto]

Understood, but that's creepy to have a single (and dynamic) point-of-failure for the entire OS like that, which app+dog can (and often does) write to. Yes, I know there are two copies of the thing on the box, but IIRC, as soon as it successfully reboots and you log in (fully, not in recovery mode, IIRC), the backup copy goes bye-bye and gets overwritten as the current one. Not sure if they fixed that behavior or not...

I mean, at least with scattered .conf files, if one goes corrupt, so what? You only lose (some or all of) the one daemon that relies on it, while still being able to access the running server to fix it. The sole exception is grub.conf @ boot time, which (as saving grace if the conf file should go corrupt) can be edited and modified right there at the boot prompt. OTOH, if the Registry goes splat, you're not guaranteed much of anything depending on severity, meaning downtime to restore it at best, and a server rebuild/restoration at worst.

Not that I hate it per se, but I seriously believe it to be a huge potential liability in a standard production environment, let alone an HA/critical one.

/P

Re:um yeah

[Sepiraph]

I was going to say that you must be driving a real POS, then I found out that the "per-processor retail pricing of SQL Server 2005 is $24,999"... So include me into that category.

Re:um yeah

[StillAnonymous]

You don't need to tell me about the downfalls of the windows registry. I got to live it, yet again, the other week when I upgraded my motherboard and had to reinstall windows (why is there no option to tell windows to 'redetect hardware' instead of loading an incorrect SATA driver and immediately BSODing?).

So, as usual, many of the applications and games I had installed that decided to store all their settings in the registry had a fit when I tried to run them. Had they used .ini files in their respective directories, this wouldn't have been a problem. It would also allow me to:

1. Move the app/game to somewhere else on the system without needing to reinstall.

2. Back up the entire program, including it's settings.

3. Move the program to another system by just copying it.

I hate the registry. It should be for the OS only, and read-only for applications.

Re:um yeah

[Belial6]

"3. Move the program to another system by just copying it."

I have always assumed that this was the reason for making it critical. When it first became the standard place to store configurations and I noticed that you could no longer run programs that have not been "installed", it came across to me as a poor man's copy protection.

Re:um yeah

[eldepeche]

why is there no option to tell windows to 'redetect hardware' instead of loading an incorrect SATA driver and immediately BSODing?

I thought that's what Safe Mode was. Man, I'm glad I stopped using Windows as a primary OS. As soon as Wine has better Direct3D support, that partition goes bye-bye.

Re:um yeah

[Z34107]

Because anecdotal evidence represents the pinnacle in accuracy and reliability, I offer my own experiences with the Windows registry.

I've experienced two registry corruptions - one was on Windows 98, and got eaten by the only virus I've ever suffered through.

The second one was on my grandfather's XP computer - the machine booted to the Welcome screen despite having only one user account, but there were no pretty pictures to click on. So, I hit CTRL+ALT+DEL (everyone's favorite key combination!) to get the old NT login screen, and find his username already filled in for me. Hitting OK gave me a "user not found" message.

I rebooted, and it bluescreened before launching the shell, saying that the registry hive was corrupted.

Crappy registry? Maybe, but chkdsk from the XP CD found that the hard disk had failed. >75% bad clusters, and the rest going, I'm sure.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about the registry. It's been there since Windows 95, and it even mostly functioned through a catastrophic disk failure. Besides, Windows keeps backup hives, and System Restore backs it up. Worst case, you're looking at a few minutes on the recovery console.

Re:um yeah

[oakgrove]

Oh cool, so now I can do from within Windows what I have been booting up a Knoppix livecd and doing for years with this tool. Brilliant. And they said Microsoft wasn't innovative.

Re:um yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't even get me started on PST's

Re:um yeah

[ddoctor]

If you think of the registry like a filesystem, then there is no difference between it and a scattered collection of configuration files. Architecturally, there is no difference in reliability. They are both settings stored in a hierarchical database.

Actually, there's no archiectural difference in security, either. Windows registry has ACLs.

Re:um yeah

[Tony Hoyle]

You can't even get into safe mode if the driver for your primary boot device goes byebye.

Unlike other OSs it doesn't do hardware detection at boot, it assumes nothing has changed and carries on blindly, at least until the UI is up and the upnp kicks in.

Re:um yeah

[imemyself]

You should see what Oracle charges...

Re:um yeah

[ADRA]

5 seconds of googling turned up:

http://www.motherboard.windowsreinstall.com/winxp.htm

Which has multiple solutions for an in-place upgrade if windows can't do it alone on reboot.

Windows is bad and all, but the registry is one of the few pieces of Windows that just works as intended. Its a data repository. How applications use that repository is their own business.

Re:um yeah

[afidel]

Actually we got Oracle 10gR2 Enterprise for less than what MS would license SQL Server for. The sales guy even made a call to Redmond to try to get approval for the deal but they wouldn't go that low. My VP is a master negotiator but I will say that Oracles support is horrible compared to MS's, I've never had an issue serious enough to call PSS that wasn't resolved but we've had a number of issues with Oracle where they either couldn't isolate the issue or told us to wait months for the next public patch to resolve.

Re:um yeah

[0kComputer]

In my experience, Oracle and SQL Server are somewhat simillar for the software pricing. Where they differ in my experience is on the Adminstrative side. Whatever money you saved, you'll probably end up paying back, and then some in adminstering the system. You could probably get by w/ out a DBA on SQL Server, on Oracle, you'll definately need one.

Re:um yeah

[StillAnonymous]

Thanks for the link, but only one of those solutions *might* have had a chance at sidestepping my problem.

#1 obviously didn't work
#3 wouldn't be sufficient since it doesn't transfer everything, I'd still be stuck reinstalling apps
#4 sysprep probably wouldn't work due to the limitations described in the link in that section.

And for #2, I'm pretty sure I went that route and I don't recall getting an option to repair, but that could have been due to another problem I had with my nLite-created WinXP disc that had the new SATA drivers on it.

It's not like I flew into this blindly. I did do a bit of research on how to manage this, but you really only get one attempt at this unless you want to go swapping motherboards back and forth. I tried some esoteric looking solution that involved removing as many drivers as I could and deleting the "enum" section of the registry. Either I missed something, or that process doesn't work.

The registry works, for the OS only. When apps start storing crap in there, all bets are off. Microsoft encourages this though, and no matter who's to blame, it's still a shitty situation.

Re:um yeah

[afidel]

We already had a DBA for our 10 MSSQL servers and needed something to run the financials for an S&P 500 company. If our package had supported SQL 2005 we probably would have gone that route but they didn't so we went with Oracle and 18 months later we are looking at moving to a Unix server, something we couldn't have done with MSSQL. I'm mostly a Windows admin but I've support Unix, Linux, Novell, etc over the years and really just want a good product with a decent support organization.

Re:um yeah

[mindsuck]

You might want to look up the definition of UPnP.

Re:um yeah

[homesteader]

In my opinion the best way to illustrate the weakness of the MS registry design is to illustrate one of it's strengths at the same time. Run regmon.exe to monitor registry activity and then open folder. I just did this on one of my workstations. With no windowed apps open and limited non-XP services running, opening a folder triggered ~2900 registry actions(OpenKey, QueryValue, SetValue, CloseKey) On one hand, this is amazing. Those 2900 registry actions must be extremely efficient, as it doesn't take but a second for that folder to open. On the other hand, this IMO is part of why Windows performance always degrades over time in non-static workstation configs. The number of keys being queried from has linear growth over time, so those 2900 actions will get slower and slower as the registry grows.

I just don't see how it could be deemed efficient for a basic desktop app to query a registry of hundreds of thousands(millions?) of keys/values to decide if my background should be blue or green.

Re:um yeah

[wild_berry]

Next time, try this: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/77909774/m/1400925745

Re:um yeah

[ajs318]

So, £13000 per processor and no source code?

As opposed to Postgres, which is £0 irrespective of how many processors are in the machine you install it on (or indeed, for that matter, how many machines you install it on) and comes with full, annotated Source Code. Or there was that array persistence layer that Sun bought ..... even that might be OK for a simple database-like application with a high SELECT to INSERT ratio.

Tough decision to make. Not!

Re:um yeah

[Z34107]

I just don't see how it could be deemed efficient for a basic desktop app to query a registry of hundreds of thousands(millions?) of keys/values to decide if my background should be blue or green.

2900 queries on a folder action does seem like a lot, but a lot of it is cached in memory. The structure of disk is very efficient; you probably have to make just as many hits to the C* trees in the NTFS file system to find/open that folder.

Re:um yeah

[fandrieu]

My turn:

2/3 years ago I bought a brand new, high performance desktop with windows XP.
One morning I booted it for 3 minutes or so to check something before going to work.
When I came back and tried to boot it again I had the dreaded registry hive error "SYSTEM.SAM b0rked"...long story short I finally had to do a full repair of the install (backup hive were useless)...which for some reason I can't remember (having to do with the disk controller ?) failed halfway, leaving me with a totally corrupted system.
Anyhow I had to do a full re-install...

OT: 2 month ago, the NTFS filesystem of a 500GB drive on this computer just collapsed "corrupted master file table...windows can't repair it..."

Now I feel that booting this windows computer is like playing russian roulette...

As you said ironically "anecdotal evidence represents the pinnacle in accuracy and reliability"

Re:um yeah

[drsmithy]

Not that I hate it per se, but I seriously believe it to be a huge potential liability in a standard production environment, let alone an HA/critical one.

From your comment, you do not know enough about the Registry to criticise it.

Re:um yeah

[happyhangone]

Registry is one of those curse/bless things. It sacrifices readability and mobility with just a single point of all your configuration files. It can assing permissions to each setting in a very granular way, as if each setting was a file system object. In fact, the only thing that is getting better with 2008, is that now you can access the registry from the command line, like a drive and access the setting like a file system. Try (in powershell) cd HKLM:. By the way, the boot menu now resides in the registry too.

I feel a disturbance...

[Penguinisto]

It is as if millions of GUI-dependent MCSE's cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

(yes, I know that some Windows admins can use a CLI for nearly anything that'll run on one, but I'm almost willing to wager that the majority do not).

/P

Re:I feel a disturbance...

[Goalie_Ca]

Luckily, it's all vbscript!

Re:I feel a disturbance...

[colenski]

Don't laugh. Just yesterday I showed one of my co-workers the NBTSTAT command and he got really excited: "Wow, I didn't even know you can do that!" - otherwise he's a smart guy, though.

no, microsoft. no

[Anonymous Coward]

so it's like linux 10 years ago? except not as good? and more money?

Frist BDOS

[Hognoxious]

I would have got a first post, but it BSODed on me.

Re:Frist BDOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be bad hardware. Have you checked your RAM? I haven't had a non-hardware related BSOD in years.

Re:Frist BDOS

[cheater512]

Yeah thats often the problem.

Windows can BSOD just by having some hardware in the same room as it. ;)

Re:Frist BDOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, looks like Ballmer got plenty modpoints!

Naked?!?!?

[syousef]

All while being naked to the world.

I don't know where you work, but at my job I don't have that nudity clause. In fact I'm pretty sure if I turned up to work naked I'd be fired. That's okay though because I'd rather quit than be around some of my coworkers naked.

I have always wanted a Maroon Screen of Death

[WillAffleckUW]

And if I upgrade to WinServer 08, my wish will be fulfilled!

Re:I have always wanted a Maroon Screen of Death

[milsoRgen]

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=653343 Not exactly 32 bit color, but I think we can oblige your Screen of Death color wishes to a degree.

Re:But still, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Running a server, especially a web server, is THE most difficult system administration task there is.

How about being the sysadmin for a nuclear power plant? For a supercomputer where you have to provide shell access to a bunch of programmers? Yeesh, a web server is a trivially simple sysadmin task these days.

A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[fahrbot-bot]

There's no GUI front end to a Windows Server Core box, but it is managed by a command line interface ...

Someone should let Bill know about this.
from: Gates: Keyboard use will decline

Chairman Bill Gates predicted computer users will increasing use voice-recognition technology and touch screens rather than keyboards. The software maker is betting big on that trend, Gates told a crowd at Carnegie Mellon Univ. In 5 years, he predicted, more Internet searches will be done through speech than through typing on a keyboard.

and this: Gates predicts fall of the keyboard

Microsoft founder Bill Gates says people will interact with computers mainly through speech and touch screens instead of keyboards.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[dedazo]

What part of Server 2008 did you manage to miss? Bill Gates was talking about his largest market, which is the Windows client. No sysadmin is going to want to whisper sweet nothings to a server to release an IP lease.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates: "Computer...Computer...."

Dr McCoy hands Bill the mouse.

Bill Gates (talking into mouse): "Aye, hello computer..."

G'vnr Nichols: "Just use the keyboard."

Bill Gates (disgusted): "Keyboard. How quaint."

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[OzRoy]

Just because it's a touch screen doesn't mean it can't have a keyboard like interface. The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard. I'm guessing that we will see the end of single purpose input devices like the keyboard.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should let Bill know about this.

Someone should inform you of the difference between a home desktop/media computer, and a server computer.

Tell me where Gates said that administrators will use touch and voice for a web server.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[garlicbready]

Chairman Bill Gates predicted computer users will increasing use voice-recognition technology and touch screens rather than keyboards. The software maker is betting big on that trend, Gates told a crowd at Carnegie Mellon Univ. In 5 years, he predicted, more Internet searches will be done through speech than through typing on a keyboard. Clippy says Command not recognized
"RM dash rf root start execute no shit stop you piece of crap" is not a valid command
please speak more clearly into your windows server certified microphone

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[fahrbot-bot]

No sysadmin is going to want to whisper sweet nothings to a server...

Hey baby. Want to kill all humans?

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[AdamReyher]

You do realize Bill Gates was referring to computer users and not computer administrators. There's a huge difference. Provided speech recognition gets absolutely perfected, I can see myself inputting a term paper by it rather than a keyboard. Programming and administration are different and will always require a keyboard as far as I can see.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[shutdown -p now]

It's not a true CLI. It boots into a graphical desktop still, just the one that only has a single shell window and no taskbar. But you can still use the mouse, and run graphical applications (notepad and regedit are included, for example). And, in theory, you could put something like bb4win on it.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[fahrbot-bot]

You do realize Bill Gates was referring to computer users and not computer administrators. There's a huge difference.

Ya. I'm a *nix admin (among other things). It was a joke. :-)

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[ConceptJunkie]

Has Bill Gates ever predicted anything even remotely correctly?

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[zlogic]

A command line is actually easier to operate with speech than a GUI. In fact I think it's the interface that's closest to human speech. I haven't used any voice recognition systems since Dragon NaturallySpeaking 4.0 (training lasted over an hour!), but I think what they generally do is saing "click ok" "move mouse up" "delete that" etc. A modern app that designed to be voice-operated should work like gvim or Autocad, having a sort of console to type in commands but having voice command substitutions.

Re:A CLI ! But, Bill no-likey keyboards.

[Forbman]

Yeah, until someone walks by and says, "FORMAT SEE COLON, YES, ENTER" on you while you're on the phone...

Re:But still, why?

[dedazo]

If you don't have the source, you cannot know it

The number of people who successfully ran outward-facing Solaris servers for any number of years would disagree with that.

Hey, Dummy,

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that WMI they referenced? Yeah, it's so you can manage all kinds of minutia through a GUI. The fact that you don't have to have a local GUI is irrelevant. Basically, you fire up the image, and install it more as an appliance and manage it remotely. Just like windows has been doing for a long time now. And pretty much every other server OS incidentally. That a local GUI is being left out changes nothing in how they're managed. But hey, you've successfully whored karma on slashdot. Your prize is continued complacency with your virginity. Congratulations.

What do you morons think, that every person managing windows servers is some mathlete reject in cross trainers running from box to box, loging on local to reboot?

Re:Hey, Dummy,

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you morons think, that every person managing windows servers is some mathlete reject in cross trainers running from box to box, loging on local to reboot? No, not every person. Just you.

Re:Hey, Dummy,

[dwarfsoft]

I use WMIC for doing WMI through CLI. I prefer the control I get over the commands by using WMIC, and I can call it via a Batch file or I can directly interface with WMI through VBScript *shudder*. I am dealing more with UNIX now though, as it hosts some of our big corporate apps.

Re:But still, why?

[Jugalator]

This requires a rational, knowable system to even be reasonable to attempt. If you don't have the source, you cannot know it--and I don't give a damn how wonderful your knowledge base is. Whoops! I've never analyzed the details and intricaties of the Apache source code -- I guess I'd make a bad webmaster. :-(

But I must say it seems you put the bar quite high!

Too late...

[B5_geek]

I'm sorry but it's too late. I stopped using MS Server just as 2003 was released. W2k was a fine OS for small and local LAN admin, but by that time I was very fluent with Debian.
My needs grew, as did the # of boxes that I needed to support & secure. The ease of remote CLI via SSH + painfully slow 14.4 access damned MS's GUI's to the gutter.

I started with DOSv5 and am not afraid of the CLI, but there was too much stuff that w2k needed a mouse & GUI for.
Microsoft; good for you for finally listening, it's a shame that it's too little too late.

Re:Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone keep saying "it's to late".

What is to late about now? Never?

Me smells fear.

Crazy with command lines

[PIPBoy3000]

They're really pushing the command-line thing for all their products. We got a demo of Exchange 2007 and not everything is configurable from within the GUI. Where it is, it gives you the PowerShell command at the bottom.

The worst part for me is that they're reducing support for a lot of their "old" API and everything has to be rewritten using command line tools. Essentially what I'm doing is making pretty web interfaces for something that should be part of their own product. Madness!

Re:Crazy with command lines

[dougisfunny]

Sparta?

Re:Crazy with command lines

[burnin1965]

not everything is configurable from within the GUI

Actually this isn't anything new for Microsoft, in fact they've gone so far as to require editing your system DLLs with a hex editor to adjust basic network configuration settings. And people think us linux hackers are amazing compiling source code, how about those windows guys reverse engineering binary code in DLLS. :)

Re:Crazy with command lines

[OzRoy]

The first service pack fixed a lot of these issues. Pretty much everything can now be done via the GUI.

Why they didn't do this from the start I don't know. Some of the omissions just felt like lazyness.

Re:Crazy with command lines

[dcam]

I'm not sure why you think this is anything new. There have alsways been stacks of things that can only be done on windows with command line only. .Net tools like aspnet_regiis, regasm, ildasm etc. But it isn't just programming related tools. Noooo, even relatively simple things like enabling SSL on an IIS site requires a command line hack.

Wait you are an exchange admin, Well you should be right at home with this. Ever tried moving the inetpub/mailroot?

Re:Crazy with command lines

[dcam]

Dammit, fixed the link.

I'm not sure why you think this is anything new. There have alsways been stacks of things that can only be done on windows with command line only. .Net tools like aspnet_regiis, regasm, installutil etc. But it isn't just programming related tools. Noooo, even relatively simple things like enabling SSL on an IIS site requires a command line hack.

Wait you are an exchange admin, you should be right at home with this. Ever tried moving the inetpub/mailroot?

Re:Crazy with command lines

[drsmithy]

Actually this isn't anything new for Microsoft, in fact they've gone so far as to require editing your system DLLs with a hex editor to adjust basic network configuration settings. And people think us linux hackers are amazing compiling source code, how about those windows guys reverse engineering binary code in DLLS. :)

Your concepts of "require" and "basic" are at odds with most peoples'.

Remote Terminal Services?

[nurb432]

So there will be a cli only TS? What about just including sshd?

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[vertinox]

So there will be a cli only TS? What about just including sshd?

When has Microsoft ever opted to follow a industry standard rather than use their own?

Well... Besides TCP/IP... Though if it were up to them we'd be using NetBEUI for internet today.

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there will be a cli only TS? What about just including sshd?

There will certainly be cliTS in the new Windows, but no male sysadmin will be able to find them...

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the slashdot world, where you're not allowed to do your own thing. I guess free code only means what you pay for it.

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[nurb432]

Telnet was ( is? ) bundled as a service, and its standard. Just not secure enough to use these days. Replacing that with SSH would be nice.

( ya, i know there are 3rd party SSHD's but that isnt the point )

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[outcast36]

There is a CLI only admin feature. (WinRM) It is an implementation of WS-Management protocol. I'm not sure how this is better than SSH, but it is there.

Re:Remote Terminal Services?

[EXMSFT]

Yes, you can TS into a Server Core system.

Hey, MCSE!

[Penguinisto]

You know that WMI they referenced? Yeah, it's so you can manage all kinds of minutia through a GUI

Lucky for you then, huh? ;)

/P

WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decade..

[LingNoi]

XML Based IIS config

That's ridiculous, you mean I have to waste my time going through a text file instead of just selecting the correct tickbox. You Linux freak wil... oh wait Microsoft is doing it? How innovative!

Re:But still, why?

[Mongoose Disciple]

If you don't have the source, you cannot know it--and I don't give a damn how wonderful your knowledge base is. MS's knowledge base IS good, and it's the standard response I get to this from Windows zealots. But they remain blind to the fact...that they are blind, ultimately, as you are forbidden from truly understanding your server software.


Considering I know a great many successful web server admins (using a wide variety of technologies) and none of them have ever gone mucking about in the source code, that's bullshit.

It doesn't take a programmer to be a good admin.

Stripped down version, command line only...

[caluml]

Stripped down version, command line only.... Sounds like...

"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer

Give them another 5 - 10 years, and maybe, just maybe, they'll get there.

Re:Stripped down version, command line only...

[seandiggity]

So very true. Just finished one of Microsoft's own courses on Vista, and every positive feature I've seen is poorly-replicated from one that already exists (or has existed for decades) on Unix/Unix-like systems.

Most people seem to miss...

[man_of_mr_e]

Most people seem to miss the fact that it's not JUST a CLI, there are also a whole boatload of client GUI utilities that go with it, that you run on your workstation to manage the server. That's something that Linux has been largely missing (not counting stuff like Webmin, which isn't quite the same thing or remote X)

For example, for a Server Core Active Directory Role, you can administer it from the standard AD Users and Computers applet from any client.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[MightyMartian]

So the extra step of going "ssh myfuckingawesomeserver" and opening a remote shell is so onerous that it's of incredible import that we run CLI and scripting utilities from our own desktop machines?

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[Lumpy]

What are you talking about? I can configure EVERY SINGLE aspect of my Unix servers not only from my workstation but from my fricking cellphone.

Windows has not had that ability until the last 2 iterations.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[man_of_mr_e]

Uhh.. what?

Did you even read my message? Who said anything about CLI and scripting utilities on your own desktop?

I said, there are a boatload of *GUI* utilities that you can manage the server remotely from the desktop. The point being, while the server itself may not have a GUI, the GUI tools are still there, just used remotely.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a crock, it's just a different solution to the same problem whether the program sits on the work station or the server -- either way you need to communicate between machines.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you have nice user friendly GUIs to do all that with on your cellphone too, right?

Oh wait, that's what MS has going for them.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[SuperMog2002]

Windows Server has nice, user friendly GUIs? I admittedly have not used 2008 yet, but nice and user friendly do not describe 2003's GUI. It's plagued with dialogue boxes that don't display anywhere near enough data (my server has 30 IP addresses. Why can I only see 4 at a time even though there's more than enough space to list all 30). Plus. MMC is just an eyesore that tries to force far too many components to fit in to its particular style. User management, groups management, and website management are three very different tasks. Why can't they each have a GUI that fits that particular role? I'd much rather have a nice, clean, easy to use GUI that fits the task at hand, with a powerful and customizable command line under the hood that I can tap in to for chaining commands together or running large batches of commands.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[man_of_mr_e]

Look, that's what WMI, WShell, PowerShell, etc.. are for, people like you. People like 90% of the rest of the people, however, like the point and click.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[Antique Geekmeister]

*OH*. That may help explain it: the ability of Linux, UNIX, and Macintosh administrators to talk to the server with a remote deskitop application andn do their configuration work goes away if they have to use different remote Windows application GUI's for each service.

That seems quite nasty.

Re:Most people seem to miss...

[xhrit]

So the man asks for a nice, clean, easy to use GUI and you tell him to use some cli tools. Where is the disconnect?

Except with MS...

[Junta]

They *insist* on using non-standard stuff, just to piss off the world, while *every* other prominent OS has at its core a bourne compliant shell.

Re:Except with MS...

[larry bagina]

OpenVMS much?

Re:Except with MS...

[Junta]

I feel OpenVMS needs to die. Considering the only actively maintained processor architecture for it is now Itanium, it's a great day for it to die.

Re:But still, why?

[Penguinisto]

Whoops! I've never analyzed the details and intricaties of the Apache source code -- I guess I'd make a bad webmaster. :-(

I think what he was getting at is, with the source code available, odds are better that independent eyes have come across a particular convoluted problem, and has found the solution by studying the code as a last resort... giving you the solution in far less time than it would otherwise take by trying to crawl into the heads of Microsoft's documentation writers.

It's a variation (and IMHO an important one) of the "many eyes" concept for securing code.

/P

sounds like unix

[192939495969798999]

Windows core server sounds a lot like Unix, only without the 25+ year history and renowned stability record... why did we need this again? /supposed to be funny, but headache causing tumors in funny region

Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Windows a misnomer for an OS without a GUI?

You must be a young'un

[r_jensen11]

You *do* know that Microsoft existed before Windows, right? And that Windows 1.0 wasn't graphical, at that, right?

I remember having plenty of fun with DOS. I also remember having plenty of fun with Apple IIe's. And as far as I know, both of those predate Linux, although I suppose BSD predates all of the above by considerable margins.

Re:You must be a young'un

[Krondor]

You *do* know that Microsoft existed before Windows, right? And that Windows 1.0 wasn't graphical, at that, right?

Sure I know that. Of course, you do realize that MS didn't write DOS they bought it and extended it. It seems as a company they tried their hardest to kill the command line since only to regress now. Interesting how it all comes full circle like that.

what I'd like to see

[sentientbrendan]

is something like core server with cheaper licensing. One area where linux kills windows right now are on clusters, where you have numerous relatively cheap boxes doing lots of raw computation.

Using windows for this you get a lot of overhead both in terms of cost, wasted HD space, memory, and processor usage on software and services that are irrelevant to a headless cluster node. Windows would be a lot more compelling for this space if they offered some kind of really cheap volume license for a stripped down windows that came utilities for managing a cluster of them. Some kind of logarithmic pricing model for clusters would be nice and make them a lot more competitive.

Of course I'm sure a lot of Linux enthusiasts would like to see Microsoft continue to price themselves out of the market. Personally, I think some more serious competition from windows on this front would be a good thing and spawn more innovation in the distributed computing space.

Re:what I'd like to see

[EXMSFT]

Um... Microsoft does offer pretty considerable volume licensing...

Re:what I'd like to see

[Anonymous Coward]

You're telling me that clusters on linux are cheaper then windows ? And you do that by talking about "wasted" HDD space, memory and CPU usage ?

I don't know in what world you live in, but last time I checked:

1) a RHEL install was has almost as heavy as a 2K3 R2 one (even without factoring in that the servers HDDs themselves are pointless, since you buy two of them, probably 72 gigs SAS or Ultra320 for almost nothing and mirror them, unless you actually bother to find a 4 gig drive that wouldn't fit 2K3 R2).

2) "memory" is something almost irrelevant, unless you're toying with 32 bits OS, and still .. 4 Gigs of ram should be enough for almost everyone, unless extremely large entreprises. I always hated the bearded linux freak wanting to take out the GUI because it took "so much memory" (yeah, 50-100 megs .. wow .. ).

3) CPUs are not really peaking on anything. I'm looking at an Exchange 2003 server running on 2003 R2 right now, deserving about 500 people. I know, it's not that much, but still, on a 2 years old server (and CPUs & RAM sure did improve, with the whole "core" thingy), and it's peak was at 3% CPU usage. That was during a backup. In the last _month_.

So I'm sorry if I don't tear my shirt over cpu/memory/cost usage .. and don't even get me started on the cost and difficulties to find an admin for a windows server compared to some linux server that was fully customized by a linux zealot.

Re:what I'd like to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft won't be bringing any serious competition to the distributed computing space. The behavior of fail over rules for Clustering services on Windows Server are a joke.

The PRINT SPOOLER service stopped?!?! FAIL THE CLUSTER

When you can fine tune the definition of "failed", maybe, MAYBE it will actually provide a usable solution.

Re:what I'd like to see

[BrianGKUAC]

(yeah, 50-100 megs .. wow .. )

That's right. 50-100 megs. Times 400 nodes. That sounds like a lot of useful memory when you're on an HPC cluster that's running a job to calculate particle trajectories in the neighborhood of a black hole. The parent was talking about CLUSTERS. Some people need more than an exchange server for their line of work.

I'll give you credit on the admin comment, though. Anybody with a GED can run Active Directory and Exchange on 2k3.

It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[gelfling]

Another turn of Bob Barker's The Price is Right Wheel o Windows is a waste of effort unless it leaps ahead into outerspace in relation to the current feature set.

It has to run virtualization out of the box. It has to allow for per process and per CPU throttling. It has to run real time back up, support dedicated inline encryption and security subsystems. It has to support 16x more RAM and an order of magnitude larger AD spaces. It has to support virtualized patches, a journalled file system, a file system that spans physical volumes.

THAT's what solid improvement looks like, not fixing 70% of what they left out or broke before and calling that a new version.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Server 2008 will ship with server mode virtualization and the hypervisor in beta. However, it has supported real-time backup (with volume shadow copies) and per-file encryption, and up to 2TB of RAM (64GB on 32-bit) since at least 2003. Now it has whole-volume encryption too (per-file encryption means the guy backing up your files can't read them; whole-volume encryption means the guy who steals your HD can't read it).

Windows NT has had a journalled filesystem that could span physical volumes since it shipped in 1993. It got transactional capabilities with Vista. Now it has online chkdsk. Can your filesystem fix corruption while it's mounted read-write?

dom

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Johnno74]

Windows 2003 already does most of what you said.

per process and per CPU throttling

you have a point there, it would be nice...

It has to run real time back up

see volume shadow copy

support dedicated inline encryption

See encrypting file system, or bitlocker.

security subsystems.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but windows has got a pretty good fine-grained sercurity system. The main problem is out of the box it is largely turned off, and by default users are administrators.

It has to support 16x more RAM

Really? 2TB isn't enough for you?

and an order of magnitude larger AD spaces.

Hmm I had never heard anyone complaining about any AD limits before so I did a quick search to find out what they were. I didn't find much, but I did see apparently korea.com has an AD implementation with 8 million accounts.

It has to support virtualized patches

Yep, you are right, that would be nice.

a journalled file system

See NTFS. Its only been around for 10+ years,

a file system that spans physical volumes.

See DFS.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[mr_majestyk]

>> per process and per CPU throttling
> you have a point there, it would be nice...

this became available in Windows Server 2003: Windows System Resource Manager

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but you can now resize live partitions on the fly!!

If they didn't mess up the plain old UI so much with the vista shell I might actually upgrade.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Allador]

It has to run virtualization out of the box. Pretty close. Hyper-V will be part of the OOBE by the end of the year, and in the meantime there are a number of free and simple to download and install options from MS and others.

It has to allow for per process and per CPU throttling Yeah, done with WSRM. Had that for years.

It has to run real time back up Yeah, done with VSS. For years.

support dedicated inline encryption and security subsystems I have no idea what this means, can you be more specific?

It has to support 16x more RAM 16x more than what? Windows supports up to 128GB of RAM in x86 versions and 2TB of memory in x64 versions. Do you really require 32TB of memory to be functional?

and an order of magnitude larger AD spaces Order of magnitude larger than what? A single forest can reliably hold over 1B objects. If you need more than that, you use more than one forest.

It has to support virtualized patches If you mean binary differential patches, they've been using this for the best part of a decade.

a journalled file system Yeah, thats been there since day 1 of NTFS. So old in the windows world its archaic.

a file system that spans physical volumes. Yeah, dynamic volumes has been able to do that for like 6+ years.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Johnno74]

>>> per process and per CPU throttling
>> you have a point there, it would be nice...

>this became available in Windows Server 2003: Windows System Resource Manager

Ahh thanks for that :)

I thought there was something like that win win2k3, but I couldn't find any info.

I've just been reading about some of the win2k8 stuff, and Hyper-V. It looks like MS are tending towards high availability stuff by using multiple lightweight VMs in a cluster, rather than having fancy stuff like hot-patching the OS.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[cnettel]

But, hotpatching is supported, to a higher degree. (It's also listed as one of the new features in Vista SP1, or really, the support was kind of there, but as it is really a feature developed for the server version the code in Vista RTM was too bad to be used.)

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[aug24]

See NTFS. Its only been around for 10+ years,

And doesn't journal file content writes, only file system metadata writes. Not very enterprisey.

Justin.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[Johnno74]

Yep, true. But in 10+ years of working with NTFS I've never seen ntfs corruption, except in cases of hardware failure.

I'm not saying its the best filesystem out there or anything, but its not bad. Its one area that has changed very little since nt 3.51, its high time MS spent some time on it. I'd love to see ZFS for windows though.

Re:It has to either be 40% faster or exploit HW

[drsmithy]

I've just been reading about some of the win2k8 stuff, and Hyper-V. It looks like MS are tending towards high availability stuff by using multiple lightweight VMs in a cluster, rather than having fancy stuff like hot-patching the OS.

Which isn't a bad thing anyway. If your (24/7) services are affected by taking an individual machine offline (eg: for patching), then your architecture is broken.

I tried...

[pookemon]

I tried to look at the web page about Windows Server 2008. But everything was CORRUPTED!

Re:But still, why?

[Jugalator]

I'm not sure, he was after all talking about me "understanding" my server software through the source.

GUI-est CLI Ever

[LlamaDragon]

I've been playing with this at work, and for a "trimmed down CLI" version of the OS I find it telling that it uses just 60 mb of memory after booting than the GUI version and it still requires some 3.5 gb of hard drive space (this isn't precise, I'm not at work right now). And the weirdest thing about it is that it's not just command line. It actually loads, to a point, the windows GUI. There's no explorer, but the command line box it gives you is a window. You can move it with the mouse. You can open notepad, and it opens in a window. Regedit is still there. Just to see if I could, I installed Firefox. They leave out a few handy odds and ends like Explorer.exe so you don't get your usual file manager, but if they're serious about going with a real command line, this ain't it.

Maybe it does have it's place. If you just want to run basic DNS or some of the 10 or so other things it's intended to do, then at least it's going to do that for you with slightly less memory/space requirements and without quite so much other stuff running that leaves it so open to other vulnerabilities. But I still find it kind of silly, a good Sys. Admin can lock down the regular GUI version just fine and resource savings are so minimal as to be nonexistent.

But that's just my couple of cents...

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[Tony Hoyle]

So basically it's like booting 2003 in 'Command line only' mode, which is basically the same thing (except I think that doesn't load drivers).

All you need to do is find an explorer.exe and I bet it'll start up a full shell. Interesting marketing exercise but nothing new.

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[LlamaDragon]

It's also missing iexplore.exe, but if I recall the folder for it is still there in Program Files, so things that rely on "a version of IE greater than 5" won't install. I thought about copying explorer/iexplore over from the GUI install but then I found something constructive to do instead. There were a few other issues when I tried to install DB2, a few other things missing, but I don't recall what they were.

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[soulfury]

Xorg + fluxbox + mrvxt or xterm?

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[LlamaDragon]

Sorry, but I don't know enough about these things to try them without sucking up too much time. I'll leave that as an "exercise for the reader." :)

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The GUI loads as normal but the "shell" is set to be a full-screen command prompt on top so you don't notice it on boot.

2. The "CLI" uses VB macros to convert your "shell" commands to mousey-pointy-clicky messages to instruct the GUI hidden behind what to do.

3. ???

4. Profit?

Re:GUI-est CLI Ever

[happyhangone]

Server Core is just trying to reduce the amount of patches and stuff that its installed by default. It should get 80% less patches than the full version (based on windows 2000 data). That translate in more UPTIME. It doesn't have a GUI (in the unix sense of the word). It has a windowing system (like x server) but doesn't have start menu, doesn't have explorer, doesn't have .net, icons, etc... All the utilities that don't depend on these stuff can run without problem and with a graphical or console interface (task manager, notepad, control panel applets, etc). You can install firefox if you want to. Is a shame that powershell cannot run inside it but that is because it needs .net. And yes, it needs a lot less of ram and disk space. The real deal with this, is that you can manage all the server by using mmc 3.0 snap ins from a remote system. This is practically the same graphical interface that you would use if you were locally managing it anyways.

It's a great OS for a server

[Blice]

Like Windows Server 2003, only now with a sexy aero theme!

Re:But still, why?

[afidel]

Do you know of a remote code vulnerability in the default install of IIS6? I know of one in the default install and a handful with ASP turned on. Since IIS6 is 5 years old I would say that's pretty damn good, even having the source to Apache isn't going to get you much better security than that since it's programmed by humans and is a non-trivial application.

Logout option

[MikeMc]

I'd feel better about the GUI design of Server 2008 if the "shutdown" option wasn't the default on the logout portion of the start menu. I can't tell you how many times I've shut down our test 2008 server in the last week, instead of logging out. Sigh.

Re:Logout option

[Sensi]

PEBKAC

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[drspliff]

XML is such a terse language, really - ignore what some people say, but it's not meant for humans.

Sure, you can read it but writing it using a normal text editor is a boring, error-prone job that will drive any admin nuts if they are forced to do enough of it.

Why not be _really_ innovative and provide a shell to manipulate XML files based on the schema.

Crappy windows severs made better

[Anonymous Coward]

It took a Linux lab to figure out how to make MS$ crappy servers better. Now they can pollute the world more affectively with their proprietary shit.

Re:But still, why?

[rastoboy29]

I said "knowable", not "I know it". :-)

I don't!  But I know that I can, and occasionally I do indeed go grubbing through the source when I'm looking for explanations of it's behavoir.

Can be run CLI only

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag when you need one. Seriously, CLI is the best way to go esp when you dont have a very speedy connection available when doing remote admin.

Laptop support? I/O performance vs Vista

[Billly Gates]

I want to run far far away from Vista on my laptop and I wonder if the I/O sucks alot less.

Of course I may still have driver issues but since I can't downgrade to XP I am looking at perhaps upgrading to it.

Re:Laptop support? I/O performance vs Vista

[FredrikL]

I'm running 2008 x64 on my HP 8710w laptop and I'm very pleased with the performance, especially in the I/O department. I had some driver issues with a few peripherals in RC0 and RC1 but those are fixed in the RTM version. And yes, I have enabled Aero so it looks pretty :). I have Hyper-V and Bitlocker installed and I use the machine mainly for development. Although not work related I have to say that I'm very pleased with the performance in games like TF2. Steam works fine btw!

Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mentioned

[MacColossus]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the lack of Services for Macintosh on Server 2008. http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1886904&SiteID=17 Might as well run Linux or OSX Server if Windows Server is no longer going to "attempt" to offer cross platform support for clients. I'm aware the SFM client used a ancient version of AFP. There used to be the misguided hope Microsoft would update it. Surprisingly they haven't killed Services for NFS. http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/library/173273b1-8734-470b-b20c-9496419412501033.mspx?mfr=true Could killing SFM be construed as anticompetitive behavior in the face of increasing Mac marketshare? I think so.

!!! openssh-server !!! ( help ??? )

[remitaylor]

*FINALLY* ... Windows servers are starting to make some friggin sense. With a headless install and a strong emphasis on automation / scriptability. This is great, especially for people like me who have some WMI experience, as well as lots of .NET. I also have a bit of Powershell experience from when I was coding with .NET.

The only thing I'm struggling with is howto get SSH up and running, so I an actually use the server. The installation went fine ... I just can't remotely connect to the friggin thing!!!

I've tried using get-command / help in Powershell and googling everywhere.

apt-get install openssh-server just doesn't seem to work!?!?

I can't even figure out howto search packages. Where's apt/yum/etc? I figure, cause everything's binaries (no source code), that there's a binary package management system, rather than portages. I just cant seem to figure it out.

Help! Code examples???

TIA! ;-)

Re:Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mention

[postbigbang]

AppleTalk services are gone. Vista gets first class status, otherwise, Macs work, even the remote data client works (with screen size limitations). The rest is there. You expected perhaps, that all that talk about SMB2 was just joshing? When the SAMBA team gets the code info that Microsoft gave it a couple of months ago (search samba and microsoft for the correct hit) and churns it into SAMBA 4, then the rest of the world will be roughly as fast-and-featured as Vista clients. Even XP goes slower because of its older stacks and SMB1. They had to do something to give Vista a boost in sales, I guess.

You can try it yourself for free

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/heroeshappenhere/register/default.mspx a free copy of the server is available at Microsoft introductory events across the country.

MS-DOS 8.0

[tverbeek]

Windows 1.0 wasn't graphical,

Huh? By what definition of "graphical"? Windows 1.0 wasn't pretty or quite as icon-happy as later versions, but it most certainly had a graphical user interface, complete with a bitmapped pixel-addressible display, an arrow-shaped mouse pointer, tiled windows with little control widgets in the corners, and icons along the bottom of the screen showing you what programs were running (a bit like OS X's dock). Perhaps you have it confused with OS/2 1.0?

I do have to say that I'm amused at the idea of a GUI-less Windows, considering that Windows began as nothing but a GUI, which ran on top of DOS. After all the effort Microsoft went through to make the GUI mandatory and supposedly integral to the OS itself, now they're talking about uncoupling it. MS-DOS 8.0 anyone?

Re:MS-DOS 8.0

[guruevi]

If you mean by 'graphical', binary colors (black and white or black and green or black and orange or if you were really rich, EGA card with 16 colors) 640k limit, no program groups, no multitasking, non-overlapping windows while competing products had 256 or more colors, overlapping windows and *gasp* hardware acceleration.

Here is a funny video of Steve Ballmer commercializing Windows (back when it was only $99): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

Re:MS-DOS 8.0

[tverbeek]

If you mean by 'graphical', ...

Yeah, that's graphical.

Sure, Windows 1.0 sucked, in so very many ways. I can give you plenty more. But that's not the point. Windows 1.0 had a GUI (and damn little else). Saying it wasn't "graphical" is head-up-the-ass nonsense.

P.S. The price of EGA cards and color monitors (which I managed to afford from my summer job as a college student in '86) and the other shortcomings of the mid-80s PC hardware architecture would hardly be the fault of the OS.

Re:MS-DOS 8.0

[Tarlus]

MS-DOS 8.0 anyone? Kinda more like MS-DOS NT since it's quite different from the true MS-DOS family... Which is actually a pretty cool idea. The kernel itself that drives any NT-based OS (particularly Win2k and XP) is admittedly quite stable. Without the graphical userland, I would imagine it to be relatively (emphasis there) secure from exploitation.

Re:MS-DOS 8.0

[tverbeek]

Just removing IE from any Windows system is bound to improve its security. And of course removing explore.exe will improve its reliability.

Re:Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mention

[MacColossus]

I don't miss Appletalk. I don't want Appletalk. Appletalk has been dead for a long time. AFP over TCP on the other hand would be nice as SMB shares currently don't preserve Mac specific file info. I have no faith in Microsoft fully disclosing what the Samba team requires to give Linux and Mac clients feature parity. It is only under continued EU pressure they have given what they have so far. Regardless, Apple has committed to making Samba as good as possible on the Macintosh. This may very well be the solution. It doesn't make it the best solution. You also have to like Microsoft making the Samba team and Apple's engineers do all the heavy lifting. Talk about being at a competitive disadvantage.

Re:Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mention

[EXMSFT]

I think you may have missed the news: Microsoft already agreed to disclose exactly that: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291688,00.htm

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[Alpha830RulZ]

So don't use a normal text editor. Use Notepad++, NetBeans, or Kdevelop. If you do a fair amount of work in these, any of them will make the job a bit easier.

I have no problem with XML files as configuration sources. They're straightforward, everyone can understand them, and the format has some error checking features. They're also universally usable in a straightforward manner by code. People can use them, code can use them, what's not to like?

Such a privledged life you must lead.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its always a problem with the registry. All-freaking-ways. If a program x isn't behaving its 99% of the time because of the registry. I worked too long doing tech support to know that the registry is anything but horrid. I'd list its many faults here, but it would make me relive a time in my life I'd rather forget. In brief I'd just say that having small config files in each apps directory is a lot easier to maintain than one giant one, that tries to solve all problems but does none well. I'm not a violent man by nature, but If I were ever to meet anyone connected with the creating a registry for windows, well, I'd like to introduce his or her face to a cream pie of their least favorite variety.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Server Core aint really that cool...

[lonoyt]

Sure, you can run IIS, but whats the point of that when you cant use ASP.NET ? If you want a basic file/web-server, why dont go for a free operating system? Setting up a web/file-based HTTP server on *NIX aint that hard, and you save a bundle on license fee. Just me two cents.

Re:Server Core aint really that cool...

[dave420]

Because IIS integrates with the active directory, allowing access to various URLs and resources to be restricted/granted depending on your user account. It's all about things working together, which is what active directory does quite well.

Re:Server Core aint really that cool...

[lonoyt]

Still, not allowing .NET is a huge stepback. They wern't actually planning on making IIS a part of Server Core, but then someone changed their mind and they didnt thought about .NET

Re:But still, why?

[homesteader]

behavoir - is this some french only Apache mod?

Mod him up!

[Tranzistors]

Who modded him troll?!? It is easier to copy-paste solution than follow vague graphical solution.

If someone asks "how do I change may IP address provider from dhcp to static on my linux box?" How do you answer?

First of all, you have no idea what windows manager does this person uses, thus if you live in KDE your instructions will be worth crap on GNOME environment.

If you do know the window manager, you do not know the localization the user uses. Whenever someone gives me graphical instructions, I have to translate them into English and hope I got it right (Yes, I use localized linux).

Not all CLI based advices works on all distributions, but this is as close as it can get.

Re:Mod him up!

[greedyturtle]

I tell people in windows environment to do a Start>Run services.msc all the time. Working through graphical hoops via delayed response communication (Emails or Forum Posts) can be a real issue unless you've got screenshots already prepped. And you can never be sure exactly what they clicked on in thier quest for the fix. Sometimes the user will diverge with your carefully planned click stream and be uanable to find their way back. CLI is a much easier way of troubleshooting.

Next I just need a good way to troubleshoot via voice.

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[ajs318]

So don't use a normal text editor. Use Notepad++, NetBeans, or Kdevelop.

Sometimes, vi or nano is all there is.

Those who don't use UNIX are doomed to reinvent it

[cmdr_tofu]

'nuff said

Things Win2008 Can't do....

[Toreo asesino]

Let's clear the air on this one now...

-You can't recompile the kernel with functionality you'll never use (i.e boot of a floppy for instance).
-You can't strip out executables you'll likely never need (wmp.exe for instance).
-You have to wait until Microsoft approve patches in order to stay upto-date.
-You can't specialise and fork projects to run on Windows Server (like IIS)

But, having said that:
-Windows Server 2008 contains a bucket load of functionality Linux doesn't (Active Directory, SharePoint services, etc)
-Hard-disc space is cheap (is about the best argument for this counter-point - a weak one I know)
-Server's if locked down correctly should be patched that ofen; plus important patches like Service Patches come tested to high-heaven
-IIS7 is highly modular; there's very very little you can't customise/disable/write-your-own. IIS7 core is a proverbial house-brick capable of send HTTP OK only responses all stripped down.

Re:Things Win2008 Can't do....

[marcosdumay]

"Hard-disc space is cheap"

SCSI disks on RAID 0 with backups are less so.

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no. It's Microsoft, (re)inventor of the gui. You will have your tickbox based front end for editing the configs with. It's just that those configs you're editing when you tick a box now reside in an xml file that is easily accessed/edited by other, possibly non-native applications instead of living in a proprietary formatted 'registry'.

I wish people would stop jumping to conclusions every chance they get. If you need to jump, surely there are cliffs nearby instead?

Yeh but...

[argent]

Yeh but... you can't run IIS7 on Server Core. Seems like very selective modularity there.

Re:But still, why?

[marcosdumay]

"Do you know of a remote code vulnerability in the default install of IIS6? I know of one in the default install and a handful with ASP turned on."

And you say that is a good thing?! That goes to reinforce what people say about MCSEs. Anyway, vunerabilities don't just pop into existence when software gets older. It is the other way around, their number should go down with time.

Let's see

[ajs318]

So they have gone for a more modular way of operating and even abstracted the GUI out of the core OS functionality allowing a "headless" server. That's good!

Next you know, they'll be letting people poke about inside the Source Code .....

Re:It's all about lock-in

[denis-The-menace]

MS is just trying to get as far away from Unix-like stuff so that IF their users wake up to Linux the users would want to stay with what they know.

IE: Only Windows has a registry for configuration. (I'm excluding NetWare 5+ on purpose , BTW)
It's not because it's better. It's to make windows applications harder to leave the Windows world and take their users with them. In fact, if your application still uses INI files you can't get Windows XP certification (never mind Vista...)

So in the end, it's all about lock-in. (Lock-in = $)

Re:But still, why?

[ajs318]

You don't have to know the entire codebase personally. It's enough to know that other people, independent of the original vendor and with nothing to lose irrespective of how much anything they might say could embarrass said vendor, also have access to it.

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[Zashi]

Nano has Syntax Highlighting, Auto-indentation, multiple-buffers, regex search and replace.

Combined with screen it's quite the IDE, IMHO.

Of course for you GUI-is-a-must people. Medit (mooedit) is quite nice. GTK2 app with builtin console and all the other stand features you expect from a code editor.

Re:WinGUI arguments on slashdot for the last decad

[drspliff]

I agree - their readable and writable by humans, but often very verbose, and if dealing with a large number of different xml files from different projects (e.g. Spring, EJB, app server configs and other random Java stuff) then its hard to remember all the different options and their expectations.

What I was proposing is a commandline editor similar to 'ed' but specifically for XML files with auto-hinting and validation based on the schema/dtd files.

In the end you'd probably have something quite similar to the Cisco IOS console, but it would work on any xml file, and more significantly make my life easier :)

Take a look at programs like OxygenXML - specialist XML editors, then think about how these could be applied to commandline editing :)

My point exactly

[davidwr]

Unix and other server OSes had them from early on if not day one.

Why Windows NT Server didn't is beyond me. Sure, it had telnetd, "net admin," and "terminal services" but it didn't have the pick-and-choose-your-components that other OSes had from infancy.

All in the name of progress!

[rice_burners_suck]

What an improvement! UNIX started out as a CLI environment that later gained all kinds of GUI interfaces, notably X Window System and more recently the Mac OS X interface. Windows is sort of going the other way around, having started as a GUI environment that is now going CLI. If we follow this trend, Server 2011 might use a teletype as its interface, Server 2015 will use a punched card system, and Server 2019 will be the ultimate, returning to the days of ENIAC, when computers didn't have stored programs at all and were programmed by running wires. What amazing progress is being made!

Re:All in the name of progress!

[Forbman]

'cept with X, one never had to stray too far from the deep end (i.e., CLI), and nothing that needs to be done on a Unix box has to be done in X (or even Emacs), unlike Windows.

Re:But still, why?

[afidel]

Dude, they are all patched, that's in the entire 5 year history of IIS 6.

Here, let me fix that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

>And you say that is a good thing?! That goes to reinforce what people say about MCSEs.

Oh yeah, I forgot. In the half-decade that IIS6 has been available there's been a handfull of issues that were all patched years ago.

win CE = NT 4

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf are you smoking dude? WinCE *IS* NT(4). At least the early versions of it were. There have been a lot of versions though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_CE_Timeline.png#file

Granted it is stripped down and has some new drives. Copy some NT4 win32 and winCE files to linux and run strings on them and you will see.

Actually, he has...

[LibertineR]

I distinctly remember him saying at SeaTac: "We are going to kill those fuckers!"

In my case, he was referring to Netscape, but he could have just as easily meant Borland, Word Perfect, Ashton Tate, Lotus or a few others....

Re:Actually, he has...

[ConceptJunkie]

Except there's a strong argument that every one of those companies killed themselves... except maybe for Borland.

Netscape simply turned into big ugly bloatware. IE simply beat it on merit (yes! it does happen).

Word Perfect took several years to make a successful transition to Windows, by which time it was too late, although anyone who knows anything still prefers it over Word. Of course, in my experience, do-it-yourself dental surgery would probably be easier, and more productive, than using Word. (It could be also argued that the incredibly poorly documented Windows 3.x contributed to nobody making a good transition to Windows except Microsoft who had access to all the secret juju that actually worked.)

Ditto, Lotus. They augered themselves in trying to move to Windows and lost any dominance they ever had or ever would have. And their biggest product in the past 15 years was Notes, which was rejected by the Soviet government for being too archaic and bureaucratic.

And Ashton-Tate? dBase IV. 'Nuff said.

I think Borland basically died a death of a thousand cuts with bloated software tools in their latter days (although OWL was years ahead of MFC for a long time, IMO, and was a vastly superior design), spreading themselves too thin (remember Sprint? Paradox?) and losing too many brains to Microsoft. Plus there was Delphi, which was actually a really good tool based on my little bit of experience, but Pascal is so 1980's.

Re:Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mention

[MacColossus]

I've missed nothing. They have agreed to a disclosure. This in no way guarantees they will "fully" disclose everything useful or pertinent. However the EU has done a excellent job of guaranteeing they will provide all the needed info or be heavily fined.

Re:But still, why?

[marcosdumay]

Ok, now that is good.

Re:Another Windows Server 2008 feature not mention

[MacColossus]

Here is news release today saying EC has fined Microsoft over 1 Billion (insert Doctor Evil laugh). http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/27/ec.fines.ms.14b/

Ohhhh Dear...

[mpapet]

see volume shadow copy

And do what exactly? Restore the volume shadow? I know that's what Microsoft is selling, but
1. It doesn't "just" work. It's most definitely not some kind of DR solution.
2. We also ran into a nasty issue on our clusters where volume shadow brings the whole cluster down in situations where there's some load. Imagine that, peak traffic and the cluster locks. Both nodes... Poof. I know. You've never heard of that and I'm making it up because there's no one else reporting the issue on the web. I lived it twice too much. Volume shadow service is off.

pretty good fine-grained sercurity system.
Apologizing for a security system that would make Rube Goldberg proud remains an outstanding issue for which there is no fix.

Really? 2TB isn't enough for you?
Nope. Not enough.

Hmm I had never heard anyone complaining about any AD limits
Of which there are many. Too many to have it be the authentication core of a heterogeneous environment.

See NTFS
Now you've made the Baby Jesus cry! The fact that I still have to defrag a server is ridiculous. No one pays much attention to file systems but there are far better ones for server environments.

MODS: are you awake?

[znerk]

This is funny, for those of you who can't understand the concept of humor. Please mod it appropriately.

Re:MODS: are you awake?

[remitaylor]

hehehehehehehehe ... I'm glad *someone* read it and enjoyed it :D