Slashdot Mirror
Windows Admins Need To Prepare For GUI-Less Server
msmoriarty writes "We knew Windows Server 8 was going to be a departure for Microsoft, including an 'optional' GUI, but in a blog post made earlier this week, the Windows Server team said that working without the GUI will be the 'recommended' method, and is telling developers not to assume a GUI will be present. According to Windows consultant and author Don Jones, this is a big hint to Windows admins that they better get used to not having a GUI in future releases. From the article: 'I'm well aware that many Windows admins out there aren't looking forward to a GUI-less server operating system from Microsoft. ... I'm sure Microsoft has, too.They're proceeding anyway. We have two choices: adapt or die.'"
Often Windows servers are also used to run actual programs with GUI's, like you do on your home computer. Having them on server means you have access to much better bandwidth and your programs can run 24/7, and you can easily deploy more servers if you need to. If GUI's are completely removed then you would need to run desktop version of Windows on a server, which is far from ideal. Servers aren't just used for web servers and things like that, they are also used for supporting programs or having a remote location. Windows server with RDP works really well for that. Even Linux servers can have GUI, as it's easy to install X11 and some desktop environment.
n/t
Any windows admin who is truly interested in what he does will have no problem adapting to a CLI environment. As we unix nerds have known for years, the CLI is where the really interesting stuff happens.
So we are going back to command line and dumb terminals... how very retro
While I like working in the command line, I don't see the need to go totally GUI-less. Sure it may free up some memory and bandwidth but can't they just trim out the crud?
If it is going to be telnet session only, why not switch to the best GUI-less OS ever? Linux anyone?
We've been running out DC's as Core for a year now. It was a tricky setup/configure, and management also takes getting used to. However, it's not that bad. Just use your custom mmc for remote management, works great.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Should be fun......
Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.
it is not going away.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Damn I guess it freezes in hell after all.
Maybe call it Prompts from now on?
How are we supposed to play 3D pinball in the server room now?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I've been operating "without the GUI" for 2 decades now... never occurred to me that it was a problem...
One of the reasons windows servers are popular is that they are (relatively) easy to use, and aren't that different from desktop windows.
If MS is going to throw the interface away, then the learning curve costs of switching to linux are much less.
Not to mention that you no longer have to pay MS license fees, and have to pay someone to keep track of the many types of MS license (per device, per user, per server, etc).
How very....
But it is. The rest of the server/network operating system community, like Novell, UNIX, VMS, MVS, OS/400, and Linux are now welcoming Microsoft to the fold. They've matured enough to now acknowledge they don't need a GUI. Heck, Novell barely had an interface of any kind on the server, all of the administration was done through tools one one of the workstations authenticated against the server once the server and workstation were up and running...
My old servers had no GUI as there was no need for them. I had an eight inch tube monitor connected so I could use the console if needed on rare occasions. Only reason new my server at home will have a GUI is because it'll also be a MythTV frontend, since it'll hammer my network a lot less than running the frontend on a different box, and because it won't be providing any services on the public Internet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Microsoft's intention is to just have GUI clients for admin, don't get your hopes up that they would actually raise the bar to have real computer sysadmins who can function from a command line
...for a mass evacuation of Windows Admins.
I mean seriously. Are you fucking kidding me?
Why even bother with a Windows Server then?
Gotta love PowerShell!
I, for one, welcome our windowless windows overlords.
Please no, programs can actually be quite complicated. They aren't like web servers which you configure and leave running. Making them GUI-less will just complicate things and make it much harder to use. There's a reason we use GUI's now a days - it's better for some stuff.
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. But now, what's the point to windows if there's no GUI?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
What they actually recommended is running the GUI on the client.
Who wants to run a GUI on a server anyway?
MS is frankly pissing their brand away on stuff like this...
All this just gives people an incentive to switch to linux.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
DOS? c:\> ?
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
GUI vs. Command Line. I lived through that argument in the 80's and 90's. With a GUI, syntax problems go away - IF you can figure out how to find/launch the GUI. On the command line, all commands are available in one spot, but the syntax can be challenging. We really just traded one problem for another.
But for those of us who run production shops, a GUI isn't scriptable and is therefore not testable. Command line scripts can be tested in an offline environment, emailed around, put under version control, and printed out for enjoyable bathroom reading. Who doesn't love command line scripts???
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Admins should just use the GUI tools remotely. That way they do not need remote desktop and GUI tools installed on the servers. This would provide the best of both worlds and make remote management for servers simpler. Most current admin tools can operate on remote servers. Microsoft could easily ensure all tools can operate remotely to make this transition easier for administrators.
Most competent Windows server admins don't need a GUI on the actual server anyway; between the RSAT (Remote Server Admin Tools) and Powershell, there's very little that you need to be "on the box" to do.
Most good Windows server admins can do almost everything via Powershell anyway - of course it would be much easier if Microsoft would write decent Powershell modules for DNS and DHCP so you didn't have to do everything via COM objects and dnscmd.
MS has finally realized that a GUI on a server is a bad idea. it consumes resources, it is insecure, and less then knowledgeable people administer system poorly. GUI is usually limited to a single system.
This change will radically change the MS landscape. Bosses will want the "new system", most admins will Install the GUI( they cant do it any other way), there will no longer be the local "expert" in small businesses. Higher wages because less admins can go GUIless.
The smart companies will just move to Linux.
Years ago I was running a Windows Desktop and I made the mistake of turnning of the RPC service, after which the entire GUI in Windows broke (no new windows could be opened). I'm assuming that if no GUI is running and there's no services running that require RPC (like NFS) that the RPC service could be turned off. [And will Win8 require RPC to allow GUI functionality?]
As someone who's done Linux server admin for more than a decade, this decision on Microsoft's part somehow seems a bit obvious... but the correct path for the long-term.
I'm pretty comfortable with a CLI, it's what I grew up with and use on a routine basis for many things. That being said there is a lot out there in terms of server based applications that are wholly dependent upon having a GUI.
Were not talking about simply rearranging the desktop here, were talking about removing the very interface that is depended on by an entire ecosystem of software. That market is easily in the billions of dollars per year. If your going to force all those developers and legacy applications to run as CLI only than your giving those companies an opportunity to re-evaluate the platform they use for a CLI based tool.
If your giving companies the impetus to decide what platform to use for a CLI based tool than many of them are simply going to switch to *nix support since there is a strong legacy ecosystem to support it. In other words if Microsoft were to do this for all of the Window Server based platforms it would be suicidal. That's a pretty poor business case and it simply doesn't make sense.
I think the far more likely case is that certain versions of Windows server will be available as CLI only (web platform etc), which they already are. I really have to question if the source of the story got their facts right, it doesn't make sense unless they didn't.
From TFA:
"It provides many of the benefits of Server Core (reduced footprint, attack service and serviceability)..."
Well, that would explain a lot.
For a GOOD long while now -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Windows%22+and+%22headless%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBRE
APK
P.S.=> Time to "brush up" on powershell's all (not a "huge leap" for anyone that's done VB/VBA programming really -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22powershell%22+and+%22VB%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH and it may even appeal to *NIX people, because it's "pipelined" too)... apk
I like the move, but it will be difficult or impossible to run older (poorly written) applications that need a GUI to run.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Finally the manager in our IT dept will have to get a clue.
I'm guessing he will do everything he can to hold off upgrading as he knows he wont be able to cut it.
I'm actually hoping he will get moved out so we can finally move to Linux.
Maybe as a Linux guy I'm not getting this but.... Isn't "Windows" without a GUI simply .... DOS?
For the more seasoned, older, and more odoriferous (AKA "old farts") IT people. Those who cut their teeth on command lines. Suddenly we are the ones who "get it". I suggest MS admins rehearse this question "You want fries with that?" :)
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
When you think basic everyday work improvements made by the need they offered in an usability and deployment improvement, we go back to a command prompt. What's next? Punching physical cards? Switches or plugs? Seriously who's the "genius" at microsoft who though this would be a great welcomed idea.
From TFA: "In addition to Server Core (the existing CLI from Server 2008) and Server Graphical Shell (the usual GUI), we are introducing a new experience in Windows Server 8 called the Minimal Server Interface."
Also from TFA: "Technically, the Minimal Server Interface is a full Windows Server install excluding Internet Explorer, Windows shell components such as the desktop, Windows Explorer, Metro-style application support, multimedia support, and the Desktop Experience."
In other words, you'll have a command-line only version, like you do today, a GUI version that behaves like the latest Windows desktop OS, and a GUI version that behaves like a locked down server is expected to behave (the "Minimal Server Interface"). Or at least that's how I read it.
The program can still have a configuration gui. You just need a remote client running on a client operating system or a web interface, which again you can access from a client platform.
Honestly most 'builtin' windows services can be remotely managed from a client platform machine already. This should be the preferred way. Generally if you as a matter of routine need to use a desktop session on your windows servers barring the ones specifically being used as terminal servers, you are doing it wrong.
Mistakes can happen more easily, and you are potentially exposing the system to attacks.
This is really a message to developers to make sure their server applications have remote management support, and that their main server processes can run on box where some the shell libraries, and some subsystems like GDI may not be present or otherwise not in a useable state.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Always follow the $$$...
Basically, MS will be able to sell a shit-load of "NEW" MSCE courses and other materials, as well as support tools to every one of those "little" businesses that are not directly contributing to MS's pocketbook (truthfully, most 10 person shops are mostly running illegal copies of software anyways (I've seen it way to much for people to argue, yes, there are exceptions, but truthfully, more illegal than not...)) so having the "guy" who knows computers enough to click some buttons to make things work just isn't going to cut it anymore.... Either send him to those training courses (via MS getting money -- and a quick intro to "pirating is bad, you'll go to jail") and/or force companies to hire already trained (more expensive) people who are already indoctrinated (and knowledgeable enough) to not use unlicensed software.
Either way, a huge win for MS; corporate and large customers won't care, may be even happier as I believe this will increase efficiency on the back-end, and little shops (who can't really hurt MS) now become paying customers.
Last I looked they were simply removing the GUI and popping it into an administration application that you can run from a client. All that does is remote connect and run powershell commands.
This to me is the best of both worlds, lighter server OS, command line access, full command line administration, simple and easy to use windows application which gives you the commands so you can script tasks you just performed if you dont happen to know the command off the top of your head...
The only situation I can see being annoying is when you need to work on a machine without a GUI that isn't online and cant be seen my your remote management tool
Windows Server 2008 ~ "Walls" Edition?
What protocol will be used? Is there going to an SSH server on Windows servers by default, or how can one securely access the command line without having to actually Remote Desktop into the host?
Remote Desktop just for a command prompt seems overkill.
FTA:
"In Windows Server 8, users can transition between Server Core and Server Graphical Shell at any time, with a single command and a single reboot."
Don't they EVER learn? It took them literally years to be able to do application and driver installs without required endless reboots. Not poor windows admins need to reboot just to start the GUI?? Why on earth can't MS come up with the equivalent of "xinit" to kick off the GUI?? This is 1980s level functionality FFS!
does anyone actually believe that Microsoft will intentionally make their product less usable? (ducking and running)
I could see the gui "disappearing" from the actual server box - but we will still have remote administration tools. the windows "client"/desktop becomes the home for the server gui
Microsoft pushes the server core installation for security (smaller attack footprint) and performance (all those gui features require resources) reasons - not because the command line is something they love
to state the obvious - Microsoft is a software company, and they want to sell a lot of software. Moving the server gui admin tools to the "Windows client" (e.g. desktop/tablet/mobile/whatever) sounds like a good way to "encourage" people to buy more Microsoft products
but yes, you need to learn to use powershell if you are going to continue being a Windows server admin ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
"But for those of us who run production shops, a GUI isn't scriptable and is therefore not testable." - by Spinlock_1977 (777598) on Friday January 13, @10:33AM (#38686236) Homepage
You've never seen GUI apps that accept arguments in commandlines? I suggest you review what argc/argv are in programming languages then, & especially with "optional" parametry!
* HOWEVER - for tasks that server/network admins do, I'd actually RECOMMEND doing commandline scripting personally... no need for GUI overheads, especially in logon scripts or just basic file/folder or userrights manipulations.
APK
P.S.=> In fact, you can "strip strings" apart, & make your commandline "single arguments" basically into a parameterized script that way, or, just use MULTIPLE parameters (and they can be 'optional' too, & this has been the case in MS stuff for a LONG time (e.g.-> I was doing that in VB5/6 even & as far back as, oh iirc, 1997 or thereabouts & that's not a 1st - C/C++ & other languages have had argc/argv for nearly forever too))... apk
Translation: Oh noooos!!! I have to type things!!!
In the *nix world, we've been working with complex configurations via CLI tools for the better part of four decades. I guess you'll just have to get over your phobia... or use server tools on a desktop machine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is going to kill of a lot of people who simply took courses in windows server. Its sad for them but really a gui is overhead no server need why do you think linux has been killing ms in the server space. By the way this is only one of the reasons there are plenty more.
Aside from some of SQL servers, I have very few servers with a 25% CPU load.
Having a GUI (that sits unused when no one is logged into the server) does not create this massive load that you suggest it does.
I run my Linux servers headless obviously. And I wasn't aware of any of my servers having specialized GPUs dedicated to application computing.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Someone is reading too much into that statement.
Command line is the recommend method now, and will be. They won't get rid of the GUI. Of course if you are really an expert, you can do almost everything quicker in the GUI. Hot Keys are your friend.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"According to Windows consultant and author Don Jones, this is a big hint to Windows admins that they better get used to not having a GUI in future releases."
Is it? or is that theory just completely made up?
Just because the server doesn't locally have a GUI doesn't mean it wont allow RDP connections, and doesn't mean you wont just be able to use the likes of event viewer, IIS manager, or whatever, installed on your local system, to connect to and manage a remote server.
I don't think most people manage Windows servers locally anyway nowadays, most IT staff are too busy enjoying the fact they no longer have to get off their arse to go to the server room because they can do everything they need with a GUI from their desk. I don't see anything to indicate that side of things is changing - just that Windows Server will no longer by default sit their handling a locked GUI for local users no one ever fucking uses anyway whilst continuing to offer the console based management option that was introduced in what, Windows 2008 Server? even then I suspect, being Microsoft, the Windows GUI will only be a quick click or command away but will simply be initialised on demand, rather than always there.
That would practically need that EVERY software on the planet need to be rewritten and made to use client-server structure. That isn't feasible, and is never going to happen. On top of that it would just slow down programs, too.
"Novell, UNIX, VMS, MVS, OS/400,"
Don't forget Cisco.
"They've matured enough to now acknowledge they don't need a GUI"
Arguably they've simply returned back to the level of CLI functionality they had - then threw away - with Xenix. If MS had stuck with that OS and developed it as much as Windows has been developed since its initial incarnation then who knows how much more advanced its offerings would be today.
"Get used to running DOS again."
Some stuff, sure. But, if you maintain clusters of machines or need to do hugely repetitive tasks, a GUI can actually be a hinderance.
I have seen applications in which you might be administering literally hundreds of items, if not thousands ... for some maintenance tasks, you end up manually going through a GUI for hundreds of items one at a time to make a change. Which is boring, repetitive, and error prone. One of the advantage of doing things GUI-less is that it allows for automation of tasks more than a GUI.
Almost anything you need to run at a corporate level where you have a lot of them works way better if you can automate it ... I have seen people trying to make changed to a large number of SAN allocated volumes, and it's painful to watch someone go through the steps with a GUI, and it's a lot more error prone.
If you're talking about a single, stand-alone piece of software that doesn't devolve into having hundreds (if not thousands) of items to control, sure, a GUI is great ... but if you ever have to update hundreds of items at a time, the GUI paradigm can fall apart completely. I once had a task to do in which I had to modify around 75 things ... it took me about 4 hours of "click button, wait, click next button, wait" and made me want to kill the developers who had written it. Partly because there was no multi-select, and partly because if it was scriptable it would become an easy maintenance task -- without it, it's painful. And, it's not like they couldn't anticipate people would need to do this often and to a large number of items.
Even for some routine maintenance I need to do on some machine clusters, it's easier to write a batch script and use "sc" to start and stop services .. because I need to shut down and disable the exact same service on 15-20 machines, I need to do it right now, and I need to get them all down as close as possible. Logging into each machine and shutting these services down with Task Manager ... well, that's pretty much a time sink. Then when I need to start them all up, I've got a corresponding script. These are tasks that we do approaching daily in one or more clusters.
For years Windows has had the "GUI only" paradigm for most applications ... pushing more applications to be scriptable and run headless will go a long way to making many administrative tasks much easier to handle. It may take a bit of a learning curve, but being able to automate certain tasks eventually becomes a huge time save (so it saves money), and is a lot more consistent (which also saves money).
I applaud Microsoft starting to push application developers towards this ... because the sheer amount of items I've seen which can benefit from this has convinced me that we must spend countless man hours of someone clicking through a GUI when a script could do it in a few minutes. That tends to be hugely lost productivity that people could be spending doing other tasks.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The main interface I used on Novell servers was the snake that showed the load ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Microsoft, the company for which the future is what everybody else is doing for more than 30 years.
This is moving forward. Let's say you have 100 web servers in a pool and you need to make changes to the entire pool. The traditional approach was to remote into each one and make those changes through IIS Admin in the GUI. Now Microsoft wants you to push the change to all 100 servers at once with Powershell.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
what would MSFT gain by not including a GUI? Doesn't make much sense.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
This sounds like a solid move to me. I've been wanting for a long time for MS to separate IE from the GUI, and it's about time they did.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If you run Windows Server 2008 R2, the "recommended" setup is to install the OS without a full GUI, called Windows Server Core. It includes a very minimalist set of tools, such as "task manager" that you can launch, but not much else.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee391626(v=VS.85).aspx
I8-D
Thing is, because of architecture, Windows systems capable of running a GUI have to run processes and consume resources even if the GUI is not used or even "started". Quotes, because there is no such thing as "starting" the GUI on Windows like there is on Unix (startx). It takes up less resources when not "started", but it takes up resources, mostly services running, even if not in that state.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
http://packetstormsecurity.org/ surely some people would have learned some lessons.
Never trust Windows Server, and as the saying goes, any Linux or BSD is good as long as you harden it; however should you be a lazy system administrator as I am sure there are plenty frequenters to /. who are entirely that; then one has no rights being a system administrator in the first place.
All cows eat grass!
"In Windows Server 8, users can transition between Server Core and Server Graphical Shell at any time, with a single command and a single reboot"
Do we really need to REBOOT the server to switch on/off a GUI?
You should have used a CLI to automate your paragraphs, which restated the same few (valid) points 6 times. :)
I mean it would be a big contradiction, in my opinion to include the word "Window" in name of such a product. A "Window" has always been a GUI object so far (at least in MS world). I mean how can something be called " Windows" if it has "optional GUI". Its like "aquarium" with "optional fishes" !!
In general, I like this approach. However, my faith in Microsoft's ability to produce a sane design for CLI management is not high. They have been moving toward this for about 5-6 years now, so it shouldn't surprise anyone. However, working with Powershell is no walk in the park. Sometimes I think they assign commandlet design to different members of the team. Those team members (thousands of them!) work on the commandlets from their own point of view with little oversight into the syntax or object model.
For instance, the object types that you would expect out of one Powershell commandlet (after you figure out the syntax, that is) is not what the next command expects as input. This has been the most frustrating part of Powershell and I keep hoping that eventually they will attack this with a more holistic approach to produce something with a little more clarity and sanity.
Is it still Windows without the GUI? Isn't a lot of the legacy code that bogs down Windows mostly about the GUI, old games and old dos programs which wouldn't be an issue for a pure server edition of "Windows?".
Is all that crap gone now? If it is, then why do you need windows at all?
What does the new windows do, as a gui-less server OS, that the various *nixes don't do?
Actually, what they tried to say with this is: "Look at us, we have serious server os now....yeah....CLI and all....we can do what UNIX does...honestly..."
IF (and only IF) this is going to be used, it will be only for microsoft based solutions (Exchange, SQL server...), because they will probably be the only one to bother making the CLI editions.
*nix-like systems are huge selling point for anything server-based, they know that, and they are trying to compete with stuff like this.
Suddenly Win Admins everywhere switch to Linux because its "easier".
Place nail here >+
Why? If I were to guess, I'd say MS would lose a lazy 10 - 20% of their server market share once 2k3/2k7 support runs out. Why? Because that 10 or 20% of admins learnt MS because they didn't want to deal with CLI in the first place. If I were one of these people, I'd jump in the deep end and learn *nix instead.
True, but the GUI doesn't take 25% CPU or 30-50% of memory. Our cheapest, oldest servers are 32-bit and can only use 4 GB of RAM. Even then, the GUI environment probably adds 300 MB of memory utilization, which is rarely an issue for those servers than usually don't go over 2 GB of total memory utilization.
Intensive applications reside on servers with 76GB of RAM, where those 300 MB become a drop in the bucket.
When you start talking about really large numbers of servers and virtualization, you can see real savings by skipping the GUI. But the parent claiming that a GUI always takes 25% CPU and 30-50% of memory is frankly lying.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
A text command is just a symbol, like a menu on a GUI. Yet various IT professional either get (undeserved) pride out of using text commands ( look how smart I am using, alternate, techy looking grunts ) or they get tense when having to deal with a CLI.
I have a number of friends who are Microsoft platform based network admins who fall into the later group. This change is really going to be a shock for them.
Microsoft informs us the GUI will fail to impliment most of their new features, and some things best left to the GUI will now add to the fustercluck that is their new command line interface by adding thousands of similar-sounding aliases for the hundred or so commands that are actually present including unix-friendly commands that remove the need to know critical things about windows servers before working on them.
Eventually, and inevitably, Microsoft's OS's will look like the IBM Mainframes.
The concept of having to memorize a few thousand "cmdlets" makes me want to hurl my "e-learning snack". WTF is next, clippy in Office 2012?
GUI-less servers aren't unique or new. Most (virtually all?) of them just don't happen to run Windows.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
To a lot of people a CLI has the stigma of being less modern while a GUI has the connotation of being more modern, more convenient.
I wonder how the MS marketing people are going to handle the perception ( perhaps mistaken ) that MS is taking a step backwards.
I've been a Unix/Linux admin for 15 years. I also admin Windows servers. Yes, you're right. Anyone who works with Windows is a complete idiot that can't type, knows nothing about scripting, and is completely baffled by a terminal screen. Either that or you're still in high school or just a dick. So tired of reading shit like this.
Shows ignorance.
added to servers by a GUI. Fully 25% of a cpu
Indeed.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
I use Windows all the time in my personal life and at work, and I like the interface. However, I can't stand using a GUI for a server. While it may be easier to figure out how to do things with a GUI, tasks aren't easily repeatable. It's also much easier to write scripts and automate things if you're using the command line and shell scripts
Also, they should implement getline(). It's useful and it has been standard since 2008.
Sounds fantastic. Plus, think about how many more Windows Updates to GUI components that won't require a full reboot.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Or a simple (secure) web interface that reads/edits/updates the local config file.
It's really not that hard.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
users can transition between Server Core and Server Graphical Shell at any time, with a single command and a single reboot.
At least we can usually change an IP address without rebooting on most WIndows boxes these days, the fact that you have to still have to *reboot* a Windows server to change many things never ceases to amaze me. How advanced! :)
> startx &
...
> killall X
What gives? :)
Why would one ever reboot except to change the running kernel version or to shutdown for hardware maintenance?
April 1st already, huh?
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
They've matured enough to now acknowledge they don't need a GUI.
Microsoft maybe, but not all vendors. There is an ungodly amount of multi-user software out there that actually requires a Windows session on the server because the core "service" is a Windows GUI application. And I'm not just talking downloaddotcom kind of software, but also pricey specialized stuff, like finance or telecom packages.
Hopefully having a GUI-less Windows Server will force those companies to evolve their products.. but there will be a long, painful road until then that will lead to extended support contracts for "old" Windows and to all kinds of evil.
lucm, indeed.
... why do they try to save the (relatively) small amount of resource used by their GUI. Nowadays servers have large enough RAM and CPU to accommodate such a small overhead.
They should have done it before (years ago) but it make less sense now.
(TFA:) Applications tailored to run on the Server Core would...
be capable of running in the Minimal Server Interface configuration to take advantage of the reduced resource utilization and servicing footprint
Can someone tell me how much % the expect to save ?
I believe that for today's servers this footprint is ridiculous. Though one shouldn't run an animated 3D desktop background. Any GUI simple settings will do.
How will Solitaire work?
This sounds like MS is getting a feel for what they're user base is thinking by making an announcement like this. As per other comments above many applications that run on MS servers need GUI's so dropping it completely would be a nightmare both for their sales and the people who run their servers. I personally would push for kerberos realms or ldap/samba configurations if they're going to move that route. As a person who spent 8 years doing a large variety of *nix systems for 2 ISP's before going into the MS business world there is no way you could legitimately manage a server using a clunky CLI system like power shell. If they're going to go all CLI they have to port more *nix commands because ls, grep, sed and awk which now come default on Windows systems is worthless because power shell isn't good enough to be useful as a CLI. Don't get me wrong, powershell is useful as a replacement for Perl scripts in an Exchange environment but it just lacks the flow of any CLI like *nix or even Cisco as another example. Even to this day I still run perl ldap binds because modern PS2 commands are just too clunky.
Please no, programs can actually be quite complicated. They aren't like web servers which you configure and leave running. Making them GUI-less will just complicate things and make it much harder to use. There's a reason we use GUI's now a days - it's better for some stuff.
How easy is it to deploy SharePoint automatically? How easy is it to automate the configuration and setup of new SharePoint servers? There are a few tools in the Windows world to automate clicks on various GUI elements...
In Linux, I can deploy complex database sites with a few lines of code in a fab file, or maybe a preseeded dpkg, or maybe bash scripts, or maybe a GET request with a few parameters to generate a config file for the specific server, or I can easily image the server and blow it to all the boxes I need, or...
I'll take the CLI way. Yeah--it might be a bit more painful to edit a TEXT file to configure a service instead of clicking the mouse--but if all you know is the security of point-and-click, maybe you shouldn't be a server admin...
Please name one scenario where point and click is a better way to configure your server than something like a text file or a scriptable CLI.
There's no place like
I never understood why a server needs any kind of GUI. If you really do need any complicated mouse/text/buttons interaction, why not do it over a simple httpd server that services a web site? There are truly a bag load of embedded web servers for every language out there. And for the rest of tasks, like show processes, load times, memory usage, firewall, update the system, etc. a simple command line application is way better.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I think they may have jumped over the fence into "user hostile" territory. F'rinstance, despite it's idiotic pseudo-TCLish syntax, a Powershell CLI interface CAN be very convenient and useful. Making it more of a pain to get that running is not. If they're going to go that route, MS needs to provide a decent Powershell editor (i.e. Visual Studio tweaked for Powershell) and perhaps a version of explorer that's actually useful, but just taking away *everything* because some little twerp of a manager had a brainwave and didn't run it by a human factors expert is probably yet another very, very, bad idea.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I think that this will start pushing servers to *nix in small businesses.. Microsoft has a long way to go to make their CLI's as user friendly as those found in *nix, and I don't think they are capable of it.
That would practically need that EVERY software on the planet need to be rewritten and made to use client-server structure
No it requires server applications to use a client server architecture, which they do already because they are by definition the server component. It *may* require some server applications to be altered to allow configuration from a client, or to use a more human editable configuration store.
There is really no problem here. Again unless we are talking about the very specific animal that is a terminal server, most people are running things on servers which are already client/server. Stop running windows server on your desk, most likely you don't need to (even you developers).
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
MS, If you're going to take away the GUI, then make the default command line powershell. And make your command line versions of programs more useful and optionally verbose.
Can we finally get decent serial consoles on x86 systems now?
One of the great things I loved about SPARC machines that if they didn't detect a keyboard, they'd automatically redirect console to the serial port (either physical or LOM-based). Messing around with getty, and dealing with the iLO/DRAC/whatever, to get console when/if a system crashed was never necessary.
Both the hardware and software (generally Solaris) knew how to work with serial, and it made remote management much easier. For one a web browser was optional, not mandatory, and so firewalls and network/port hopping was kept down to a minimum.
A lot of us came along before the days of a GUI. We learned how to do EVERYTHING using a CLI. And you know what? We knew how to do EVERYTHING, not just what the GUI allowed us to do! GUIs are for dummies. Real men (and women) use CLIs!!
...ASCII based GUI's start popping up on Windows Server boxes everywhere.
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
The real problem is the use as an attack vector, unnecessary overhead in virtualized environments, and the fact that a lot of the servers are never accessed from the physical console. There will still be plenty of remote GUI based management applications for servers. You can use any "language" you want to build a custom management console that utilizes Powershell calls.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
The traditional approach was to remote into each one and make those changes through IIS Admin in the GUI. Now Microsoft wants you to push the change to all 100 servers at once with Powershell.
Yeah--the PowerShell route was pretty obvious when they completely hosed the IIS GUI in Windows 2008. It's a combination of a bad cheap hosting platform web control panel and adding so many different clicks that learning PowerShell seems easy by comparison.
There's no place like
If, combined, will the 2300 cmdlets do as much as awk.
Nullius in verba
People actually use Windows Server?
So Novell was right all along, you really don't need a desktop GUI on a server.
I miss Netware.
Self awareness - try it!
a sd slot and control panel because computers are way too scarce and a snake game!
"Microsoft Cards 6.0", has a nice bing to it, dontcha think, Chad?
Table-ized A.I.
from MS will be the ability to run the GUI application on the headless server, but have it show up on your client. Eventually, they will have encrypted command channels too, and maybe a 3rd party will make a compression plugin for low-latency links. Maybe antoher 3rd party will setup some kind of easy public-key authentication scheme for arbitrary (i.e. non AD hosts).
In the meantime, I'll just ssh -XC like I have been doing in the *nix world for the past 10 years.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
I used Xenix back in the day (I think before MS acquired it) - it was handy for our application, as it had all the UI and unix tools we needed for development, but the system we were building could go underneath it and run in soft realtime, which was necessary. Xenix just quietly waited in the wings until the program gave the machine back - which might be several days or weeks. Our application involved four servers and two data stores on a SCSI-based LAN (yes, we abused the SCSI protocol) with hot failover and 24 graphics terminals running a 911 mapping system.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
What windows needs are config files and a package management system so proper CM (configuration management) can be done.
Click here, here, here, here, here, then here is a retarded way to try to manage things in a reproducible and properly documented fashion.
No, group policy is not the answer, it is better than nothing though.
Worked for Novell. Oh, wait.
As far as I know even if you run headless with server core there is still a UI presented when you login. TFA dance around it with talks of IE and various UI services not being avaliable but at the end of the day there is still a UI present.
I like the concept of Microsofts remote management tools but when you are bandwidth constrained they are painful to use. The citrix/RDP technology works well everywhere even over dialup, intl and sat links. I hope they will find some time to optimize existing remote management tools to at least reduce number of round trips.
I also think MS and the rest of the industry needs to stop drinking the virtualization coolaid. What we really want are jails that can be migrated. Duplication of resources and management overhead needed to express management concepts lacking in the base system concept is depressing.
Next generation WTF: mission critical enterprise applications written in Powershell. Probably better than VB though.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
"Having them on server means you have access to much better bandwidth and your programs can run 24/7, and you can easily deploy more servers if you need to"
What?
Really what are you talking about? If you are running a GUI application on a server that is not just wrong but down right silly.
You need more bandwidth? Then you get it more bandwidth.
Now if you are talking about machines with more than one CPU and a lot of memory then sure. Those are called workstations. They may use the same motherboard as a server but they are not being used as a server.
A server needs a GUI like a submarine needs a screen door. If you are going to run anything like that on a server you should really use a VM anyway so that it will not take down the entire box when it crashes.
Anything on a server that you can get ride of like a video card means less heat, less power used, and less cost. It is also one less thing to fail. RDP? how much bandwidth does that take? A lot more than ssh and command line.
And that is why real tech companies use Unix/Linux for servers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
yeah, some people also operate without eyes completely forever, not a problem.
When I do builds, move files around, push updates and run scripts, I prefer the command line.
By the way, you've been operating without a GUI for 2 decades? Well I tried /. in lynx, it blows chunks.
You can't handle the truth.
I really want to know who the IDIOT at MICROSUX (Microsoft) is that is pushing this GUI less server OS ? Who in their RIGHT MIND would even consider it ? Windows since version 3.0 has been focused on a GUI interface. I am not a fan of the Windows Power Shell nor the Exchange Power Shell. I find command line based interfacing SUCKS ! What, are they trying to mimic and compete with LINUX ? Get a GRIP guys and quit listening to people who should not have a computer to begin with.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's not just the extra memory and cpu used, but the diskspace wasted by having the gui software present on disk... Then you also have to consider the fact that extra software means extra locations where security holes could reside, and therefore extra files that have to have security patches applied etc...
300mb and however much disk space may not be a lot on a single dedicated server, but it soon adds up...
Consider a VM environment where you have a large number of virtual servers running on a single physical box, that wasted memory is now multiplied by the number of virtual instances you have.
Also a VM doesn't have real video ram, it has to emulate it using system memory... So you have a virtual framebuffer sitting there displaying a graphical login prompt...
Also if you have an OS that cannot boot without a videocard fitted, then you have to include one in all of your servers... It will consume power, waste an expansion slot, and cost money... Not a big deal for one server, but soon adds up over a large number.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I they really go without a GUI on Windows server I predict that the general reliability will go up for two reasons:
1. No GUI = less lines of code to evaluate so less chance for bugs.
2. Desktop users will stop thinking that they know how to admin servers because the GUI looks familiar,
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
In fact, the idea MS has been working towards is not logging on to the server at all. Using neither GUI nor CLI locally. Instead they have invested heavily in WBEM, and PowerShell remoting.
The Server Manager and the management console add-ins of RSAT (Remote Server Administration Toolkit) have been offering GUI-like remote administration of servers at least since Server 2003. The Server Manager has matured a lot in 2008 and 2008R2.
PowerShell remoting is really powerful: You can already run scripts / script blocks with fan-out remoting, i.e. the same script is executed simultaneously on multiple remote hosts, consolidating the output objects and status responses back to the main script which will automatically synchronize (wait for all hosts to either suceed or fail or timeout before continuing) and consolidate the results with indication of each object's origin.
With Server 8 the Server Manager becomes a tool for administering multiple servers with single operations. The add-ins integrates with PowerShell and you can design fan-out operations right from the user interface, e.g. filter servers by name, selecting a number of servers and add the "webserver" role to all of them at once - which will install the IIS webserver.
If you need to script installations or administration you can use PowerShell. With PowerShell 3 it even comes with workflows (suspendable, resumable on other hosts, scripting across system restarts etc). Still, you can script from a "command server" or workstation through PowerShell remoting or WBEM.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Saw this comparison in an article a while back.
Command to install apache on linux -
sudo apt-get install apache2
The command to install IIS on windows server 2008 -
start /w pkgmgr /iu:IIS-WebServerRole;IIS-WebServer;IIS-CommonHttpFeatures;IIS-StaticContent;IIS-DefaultDocument;IIS-DirectoryBrowsing;IIS-HttpErrors;IIS-HttpRedirect;
IIS-ApplicationDevelopment;IIS-ASPNET;IIS-NetFxExtensibility;IIS-ASP;IIS-CGI;IIS-ISAPIExtensions;IIS-ISAPIFilter;IIS-ServerSideIncludes;IIS-HealthAndDiagnostics;IIS-HttpLogging;IIS-LoggingLibraries;IIS-RequestMonitor;IIS-HttpTracing;IIS-CustomLogging;IIS-ODBCLogging;IIS-Security;IIS-BasicAuthentication;
IIS-WindowsAuthentication;IIS-DigestAuthentication;IIS-ClientCertificateMappingAuthentication;IIS-IISCertificateMappingAuthentication;IIS-URLAuthorization;IIS-RequestFiltering;IIS-IPSecurity;
IIS-Performance;IIS-HttpCompressionStatic;IIS-HttpCompressionDynamic;IIS-WebServerManagementTools;IIS-ManagementConsole;IIS-ManagementScriptingTools;IIS-ManagementService;IIS-IIS6ManagementCompatibility;IIS-Metabase;IIS-WMICompatibility;IIS-LegacyScripts;IIS-LegacySnapIn;IIS-FTPPublishingService;IIS-FTPServer;IIS-FTPManagement;WAS-WindowsActivationService;WAS-ProcessModel;WAS-NetFxEnvironment;WAS-ConfigurationAPI
You need to hire people who want to tech school or learned IT on there own.
CS is for programmers and even then it's to top level.
IT guys do not need 4 year CS to sever / desktop work and that is why they don't know much. People who learned on there own may say worked with DOS / win 9x and back then the CLI was used more.
Back in the day when you had to edit config.sys and autoexec.bat
The removal, or more accurately the lack of a UI is more to do with Microsoft getting applications to market quickly, rather than Microsoft working towards a UI-less OS. Take Exchange 2010 as one example, the initial release had fundamental configuration options missing from the UI and Admin’s needed to run Powershell scripts to get the system up and running in a production environment. However these missing configuration options appeared in subsequent Service Pack releases. Don Jones statement is basically a poor excuse for rushing applications to market when they are not fit for release.
This new GUI-less server concept - Why didn't we think of this before? Now Linux will once again be playing catch-up with new Windows technology.
Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees
Microsoft has a long history of making changes that their customers don't want, just look at the mess that is the Office toolbar and interface.
So now they move their sites to the server OS. Want a GUI? Too bad, we don't want to do the work so tough for you.
"There's a difference between running a "headless" computer and running a CLI only OS. Headless usually refers to a computer that doesn't have a monitor or input device connected. In this instance the computer OS can still be running a graphical interface even though it is probably never or rarely used." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13, @11:10AM (#38686946)
Right/Agreed-NOT disagreeing on your definitions given! Hmmm - I guess I didn't "stress that" enough & that WAS my point: We're on the "same wavelength" here though.
APK
P.S.=> You could always remote admin such setups though, via pstools, GUI mmc tools, VMware etc./et al though...
... apk
In that case the single benefit to running Windows is going away. I can no longer be lazy and have to return to memorizing commands and their syntax. Luckily for me I'm already quite familiar with the structure of this wonderful command line based nos called Linux. Or I suppose we could make a "paradigm shift" to some newer technology. The point I'm trying to make is that as a sysadmin and decider of which direction our organization goes, the continuous microsoft upgrade path has only been marginally followed because it was 'easy'. There has always been some sort of consistency in the OS management tools and interfaces. Take that away, I may as well consider all my other options.
Am I the only Windows user who is usually dismayed to find out program x cannot be controlled from a batch file or script via a command line? A lot of good Windows software has a GUI AND lets you treat it as a command line program. Look at defrag.exe in Windows 7.
Personally I dislike windows (GUI) servers. The GUI seems to hog to much resources that's really not needed. On my Linux servers I still use Fluxbox as a GUI when needed.
Since these two posts have got so much positive moderation one must assume there are moderators here who have absolutely no idea of how a server works.
Logging in remotely to a server has nothing to do with having a GUI. I do it routinely on my Linux servers using SSH. Using SSH my personal computer is working as a dumb text terminal, which is orders of magnitude faster than a VNC when you have a slow connection.
Having a GUI on the server will worsen your performance.
At least (s)he was considerate enough to put it in digest form rather than spread it out amongst 10 different posts on this thread, or for that matter to keep discussing this subject ad nauseum on slashdot, why is it so hard for tech savvy people to accept that the CLI is useful, GUI's are useful? Each have their place. Sometimes you want a screwdriver, sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a sawzall, they are not interchangable tools. Maybe the OP figured that some people weren't getting the idea that having several approaches to doing things == flexibility == a good thing. Kudos to Microsoft on this one, this got me kind of excited, but then again I cut my teeth on DOS back in the day before Microsoft had GUI's so this seems entirely logical to me.
Microsoft may be taking a step forward by dropping the GUI, but they still don't get it.
What makes Unix so powerful isn't just the shell, it's the concept of pipes. The input and output of each program is text. You type the input at the keyboard, look at the output on the screen, that's what makes Unix so powerful.
Why? Because that way you can pipe the output of one program to the input of another. By using binary objects each program gets two additional levels of complexity, you need a utility to inspect the objects and another to enter data.
PowerShell is the way Server Core is administered and nothing on UNIX compares to it. If you think otherwise, then you haven't actually used PowerShell for real work. For starters, you can pass entire data structures as arguments.
You do not need a GUI on a Windows Server anymore. And you should be well-versed in PowerShell if you want a future in Windows administration.
It's like you actually understand the issues and read the linked articles or something.
So, MS is going to make a shift towards more CLI. I had already heard rumours and stories that some configurations would have to be done on the Command Line. I may be a little cynical here, but consider the following:
Over the past while, the perceived value of having MS Certifications has dropped somewhat as MS Windows Servers become more easily configured. Now, Administrators will have to know some of the more arcane commands, and have a better understanding of how the systems work in order to properly configure Windows Server without the GUI's.
Aside from some of the improvements that folks have already mentioned, would this not also revitalize the revenue stream that MS gets from the training and certifications? And, make these certifications actually more relevent?
I'm baffled by this because the Windows command line is absolutely, positively useless in every way. It lacks a proper history function, proper tab completion, proper environment variables, it is not possible to configure most things with text files, scheduling tasks is practically impossible, the multi-rooted filesystem is an unfunny joke, and most of all Batch scripts are literally, not figuratively, the least useful form of programming I have ever seen, including taking a shit on a keyboard and hoping for the best. The entire Windows stack is completely inappropriate for use in any business, let alone as a server, and thinking of using it without the GUI makes me fear and hate it even more than I fear and hate Windows right now.
No. No, Microsoft, no. No, no, no. If you want to make the world a better place, here is a three-step plan:
1. Discontinue Windows. Burn it in a fire, and then apologize for it.
2. ???
3. The world is a better place.
I'm guessing that the reason for using a Windows server is to support some very Windows specific application(s) otherwise why bother? For almost any purpose Linux is better/cheaper/faster/more secure! Just like you would use Solaris for a Solaris-specific server application or NSK for something very critical/scalable. Windows has been eclipsed, and the GUI is compatible with existing code.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
"920 PRINT "IT'S YOUR MOVE: ";
930 INPUT P,Q,R
940 IF P>W+1 THEN 1030
950 IF P=W+1 THEN 1000
960 IF Q>X+1 THEN 1030
970 IF Q=(X+1) THEN 1010
980 IF R >(Y+1) THEN 1030
990 GOTO 1050"
-Styopa
It's not just the extra memory and cpu used, but the diskspace wasted by having the gui software present on disk
That's not really a problem in this day and age. Maybe back 5-10 years ago, but not today.
Can you imagine when essentially all of the Windows server applications are going to work well enough GUI less that Microsoft is going to feel comfortable removing the GUI? Microsoft is not Apple. They don't announce a new direction at WWDC and all the developers fall in line. And they aren't willing to make large breaking changes to ram through new ways of doing things.
Windows may be moving towards more stuff being able to be run without a GUI. I doubt there are going to be any major apps without a GUI interface. I think it is essentially impossible there will be a GUI-less version of Windows server within a generation.
And LAN Manager and 3+Open. The worst thing was when they finally put some of the cli stuff into a GUI app, many of us LAN Man admins were pretty pleased with how much easier it was to manage the stupid servers. Tacking 3+Open on top of LAN Manager and OS/2 was just a mess.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
but the diskspace wasted by having the gui software present on disk...[/quote]
My Windows server install weighs in about 40GB total (with all the bells and whistles). That's a whopping 2% of my 2TB array.
Of that, maybe 10% of the space is taken up by GUI components.
So yeah. I'm really going to miss that extra .2% of my disk space.
As for VM space? You're not supposed to be running VMs as huge file repositories. So as long as the VM isn't consuming +90% of the available virtual disk space, so what?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
In case you feel the need to return it....
FTA: The Minimal Server Interface enables most local GUI management tasks without requiring the full GUI Shell or Internet Explorer to be installed.
But won't this make the operating system really slow and unusable? :)
"In Windows Server 8, the recommended application model is to run on Server Core using PowerShell for local management tasks and then deliver a rich GUI administration tool capable of running remotely on a Windows client."
http://blogs.technet.com/b/server-cloud/archive/2012/01/11/windows-server-8-server-applications-and-the-minimal-server-interface.aspx
In other words, it sounds a lot like where Novell was in the mid-1990s and where *nix has been forever. The server will no longer be a workstation. The server is the server and the admin tools reside elsewhere.
I am not happy about this given the cluster fuck that is Server Core and the sub-par command line that they have delivered with it in 2008 R2. As long as they get their act together and provide the full set of MMC tools, it will be fine. Knowing Microsoft the server team will be different from the team developing the management apps. Half of the tools will work from GUI and the other half will require doing it from the console. Of course they won't do something simple like SSH, so we are going to have to have OOB management, or direct physical access.
In all seriousness though, there are serious flaws to this line of thought. Who the hell wants to work on file system ACLs from the command line? Who wants to setup user accounts and security groups from the command line? There certain basic admin tasks where having a GUI, and features like auto-complete are a godsend. Now granted, for large scale user adds or modifications you should be scripting them. But for one off adds, or looking at the resultant set of policy for complex ACLs with a lot of inheritance, the idea of doing it from the command line just sucks.
Not only that, but once upon a time, there was a point where running a GUI would take a considerable percentage of the resources of the machine. Now, not so much. You have a machine with 32 GB (or 512 GB or whatever) of RAM, and you're worried about the small amount taken up by the GUI? Sure, make it so that the GUI can be completely shut down, link in Linux, but don't completely remove the GUI. We're passed the point where not running a GUI gives enough of a performance advantage that it's worth not having it installed.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Without the nice "friendly" GUI, what the heck is the point of running a Windows server? If you're going to be on the command line anyway, why not run a far more robust & efficient Unix OS?
Looks like a good opportunity here for Linux to jump in and take away enterprise server market share from MS.
I had an OSX-server box with several mac minis for a couple years that I messed around with Xgrid for various tasks. It was more of a hobby, but one thing I liked was the Apple Remote Server toolkit. I had my choice, I could connect to my OSX server box with SSH and do everything command line like any other *iux box, or I could fire up the remote GUI tool on my PowerMac or PowerBook at the time and administrate the machine with the GUI, which was far more handy for some tasks.
I liked the either/or....
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Please no, programs can actually be quite complicated. They aren't like web servers which you configure and leave running. Making them GUI-less will just complicate things and make it much harder to use. There's a reason we use GUI's now a days - it's better for some stuff.
It's better for poorly trained underlings. It's much worse for things that actually matter, like proper change control and management, service cloning, mass changes, and many other things admins of actual servers of any number need to do. There are all easy with text based configs, and it works almost exactly the same way with exactly the same tools regardless of the application or who made it.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Windows admins, welcome to the real world. You might want to brush up on your reference manuals.
Ok that was snarky, but geeze, as a Unix admin from a time before Winders, I've been waiting for this for a looooong time.
And as the admin of a loose collection of Linux and Windows now, I'm soooo looking forward to dumping Remote Desktop. Oooh, not having to wait for my desktop to load before running one command. It makes me feel all warm and tingly.
Finally, something to look forward to in Windows 8.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Wow, did you just bring back some memories. Where did I leave that token ringer tester?
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Microsoft maybe, but not all vendors. There is an ungodly amount of multi-user software out there that actually requires a Windows session on the server because the core "service" is a Windows GUI application. And I'm not just talking downloaddotcom kind of software, but also pricey specialized stuff, like finance or telecom packages.
That's the point: Microsoft is telling these vendors its time to do things differently. To do things in a way that makes Windows server services more competitive with the rest of the marketplace.
Also, running telecom packages on Windows server is a joke. I work in telecom. Every last piece of telecom server software that I've come across that is available for Windows only was made by someone who has (or had at the time the decision was made) no clue how the telecom business works. I have exactly one Windows server running in my datacenter, and it is to run the VMWare cluster. Absolutely nothing else is running windows or a GUI of any kind. This is at a fairly high volume voip telecom.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
"I can't think of any other explanation therefore my explanation is the correct one". Hmm.. Sounds familiar..
...and then there are the Wintards. Heh. No point and click?
I think your argument isn't valid in the least bit. You're comparing an operating system that was built to be run from the command-line to one that has had a GUI since it's initial inception. I believe a system should support the ability to administer it from either the command-line or the GUI and leave it up to the user/administrator to decide which method they use.
In addition, making claims about whether someone should or shouldn't be an admin based on their personal preferences seems foolish. It doesn't matter how they administer the server, as long as it's stable and secure.
A lot of small businesses may soon be learning that their high priced "adminstrators" are just casual desktop users who know how to use an installer disk and what happens when you add "technet" to a Google query. Burn baby burn.
This move is about the complexity of programming computers. By removing the GUI dependency, you simplify the life of the developer, not to mention the savings you get from not having to design, program, localize, and test a GUI in various builds.--MicroSoft is free to repeat the mistake with Excel, though--localizing function names and keywords.
That said, you're always going to have a GUI anyway (if you're sane), like forms for user account creation, but then you'd have to roll your own (fragmented), and since you're rolling your own, you are going to make mistakes or miss something at some level, and all of these mistakes are multiplied by the number of scripters, but at least you'd have the freedom to do so.
Scripts are about removing the concept of applications (to some degree) and focus on services and functionality. This is a good thing, since you can now roll your own user interface. ;)
I would assume that Powershell would be the default. Would there be any possibilities?
Who needs Windows? You might as well use Linux then.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
After how many years they realized that having everyone run as root (administrator) was a bad thing? Next they realized having some command line tools really does add power (hence powershell). Now they've realized that maybe not having a GUI on every machine might also be a boon. Hmmmm, this all seems SO familiar. Now if they could just make it so it was modifiable and freely redistributable we'd really have something useful.
Arguably they've simply returned back to the level of CLI functionality they had - then threw away - with Xenix.
I would assume they'd go with PowerShell.
ssh -X
Tools shipped with OS-X were pretty and comfortable, but troublesome after upgrades (e.g. laptop Snow Leopard with 10.4/10.5 server).
In any case, cli is just fine, and most importantly, bash and major sysutils haven't *changed* rigorously over 10 years.
With Gui utils, it's always the latest trend in UI whizzbang that takes up worthless time trying to figure out whether this simple and once in a year task is actually accomplished by pressing a newfangled button with ribbonized toolbars and tooltips in the newer version of the same app.
I like to spend my time learning on interesting subjects without throwing away experience uselessly.
Regardless on anyone's feelings on command line vs. GUI, one reason it is so popular is that it's easy to administrate for people who don't know how to use a CLI. I see it all the time now. Sure, it's definitely not ideal to be a sys admin who doesn't know how to use a CLI but...they're out there...and there are a lot of them. Without the GUI it's just one more reason not to run Microsoft on your servers.
Personally, I don't really like this either. I'm fine with CLI but I think a GUI is well suited to many server tasks. Microsoft could definitely have a stronger CLI (I haven't messed with powershell...Im in infosec and don't administrate that often anymore)...but the GUI was a good tool.
I dunno. I think this is a very bad idea for MS. For LINUX advocates? It's awesome.
the next M$ killer app = gui-less windows .
Also, running telecom packages on Windows server is a joke. I work in telecom. Every last piece of telecom server software that I've come across that is available for Windows only was made by someone who has (or had at the time the decision was made) no clue how the telecom business works.
Here is an example: I've been working in large volume call centers for a while, and most of the voicemail detection software (for outbound automated dialers) I've seen is available only on Windows. Those products are proprietary, niche solutions and they usually come as a single application that includes the GUI and the "service". Not only do they run only on Windows, very frequently they require a specific hardware and a specific firmware version, and the drivers are available only for Windows.
I'm not taking a position for or against Windows here, I'm just saying that it's not because Microsoft can move forward that the vendors will be quick to adapt.
lucm, indeed.
Not to mention that a GUI-less mode was available in Windows Server 2008 already.
Server Core is not GUI-less. It still actually *is* a GUI -- just a crippled one. It still requires graphics mode, and a few things even pop up the same GUIs you get on the regular install. (REGEDIT comes to mind.)
Since it's still running in graphics mode, that means no serial console, which means you need significantly more expensive gear for remote console. One shouldn't need the console often, of course, but on the occasions you do need it, you *really* need it. (And no, "serial console" doesn't mean cabling up an old VT-102 to the server. You use external gear to make it available via SSH.)
Moving beyond the question of "GUI or not", Server Core has usability issues. Microsoft's included tools for Server Core administration are quite kludgy, and often incomplete. Try changing the screen resolution, for example. (If you're going to force me to run in graphics mode, I'd like the screen to support a window bigger than 80x25.)
Most of all, too many things don't work without the full GUI install. That includes most of Microsoft's own server products. It's kind of ridiculous for Microsoft to expect others to support Server Core when they can't even do it themselves.
So while Server Core is a step in the right direction, and 2008R2 is improved, there is still a long way to go. This news sounds like further steps in the right direction, which is a Good Thing.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Sort of - Server Core isn't GUI less at all. It's basically without most of the user interface shell installed. The "GUI" itself is completely there -- windows, mouse pointer, buttons, etc etc. What is missing is basically 'explorer.exe'. (In linux terms, X-Window is present, and a window manager, but not a desktop environment').
Clearly nobody's read this article - and the 'redmond mag' journalists, like most I.T. journalists, don't actually know what they're talking about. Reading the MS post, Windows 8 introduces a new level between 'full desktop experience' and 'server core'. The new mode (Minimal Server Interface) has *MORE* GUI than Windows Server 2008 Core. This slashdot summary is completely and utterly wrong - it couldn't be more wrong it it tried. MS are increasing the GUI levels on the server, not decreasing them, to produce a version of Core that has MORE GUI than before. Not less. SHeesh.
(It's basically core + most of the U/I shell, but without I.E. and Metro and some of the real 'desktop experience' stuff.) So, now I suspect you'll have:
1. Core (same as 2008) - basic GUI (buttons, windows, etc) but most GUI exes and dlls are missing.
2. Minimal Server Interface (full windows less (explorer, internet explorer, metro, multimedia, desktop experience)).
3. Full level (same as 2008 now) - explorer.exe and internet explorer all installed; but probably not 'desktop exepereince'
4. Full + Desktop Experience - basically, everything.
Anyway, core is Complete Waste of Time With No Benefit. Honestly, half the programs require GUI components, and if you don't actually log on to the box, the only difference is slightly more disc space used (no differences in processes running or memory used). It's plain just not worth the compatibility hassles, or the very fact when it breaks, it's an incredible pain to try and fix. (You'd better hope that all the server programs are administrable remotely or via the command line. Trust me, they won't. And you'll shake your head when a command line pops up a GUI dialog box.) This is why they've added the 'minimal server interface' - the idea that it's an enhanced-core so you can run most of your programs to get things done still.
The real gain for server-core is not performance - the theory is that it's easier to patch because less patches are relevant (e.g., because Internet Explorer isn't installed, there's never going to be a need to patch Internet Explorer.) Problem is that installing more than one patch is no more of a pain than installing one, and usually a patch was relevant for server core, meaning a reboot that month ANYWAY.
This is most certainly not 'minwin' (an internal build of Windows that MS will never release that is, truly, without a GUI.)
(Oh, and I laugh - one of the reasons that Netware was considered old and obsolete was - and you'll laugh - was because the server did not have a GUI. I kid you not, everyone in the IT media was critcising novell for not putting a GUI on their server, and when they did, it was 'too little too late'. Sheeesh.)
adapt to MS, die, or use another OS
without a GUI, i might finally be able to sell management on switching the servers to linux! yay!
Given the ease of this, I wonder if Microsoft intends this type of switchability in Windows 8..
Perhaps the command to get a GUI will be "win" ? ;-)
The problem with a lot of Microsoft stuff is that even with something like powershell, its still PITA to manage everything with out a GUI.
And besides, sometimes a GUI really is better. not always, but choose the correct tool for the job at hand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Things look a bit different if you run Windows as a guest OS in a VM. There is very often a point in running each service in its own VM and if the server needs to run n copies of Windows, then n times the 300 MB suddenly is a lot of memory.
Since Microsoft copies everything else (note the Panther folder in Vista), they might as well copy the name too. They sued over "Lindows", but they did patent "sudo".
Great artists steal...and steal...and steal...
Look up X windows. The server the application runs on does not need to handle the graphics, that's all done on the machine the user is sitting in front of. All the server needs is the right libraries, it doesn't need a window manager or anything to pretend it is displaying anything on the server. So yes, people do run realtime graphical applications on their own machines using headless servers quite frequently.
I've probably confused you into thinking I agree with you - so go look up X windows to get an idea of what I've written. The server isn't really running the GUI, it's running the backend stuff that gives the GUI something to display.
Besides, you're straying way off topic here because the discussion is about admin tasks and the ideal is to have something scriptable and thus scaleable. GUIs don't work for that situation.
Is the login to Windows Server 9 going to have a 'CICS' logo in text at the top of the screen?
Do I need to refresh my twinax cabling skills?
ZOMG.
Now that is "news for nerds". For more than a decade, any time the subject came up, you'd have countless astroturfing M$ shills explaining us how great the idea to have a GUI on server was. How it was the best thing since sliced bread and how much the Un*x command line s*cked.
Honeslty, to all these 'tards who've been repeating this through the years: eat it! Eat your GUI-for-a-server-was-the-best-idea-since-sliced-bread.
There. For you. From M$. Best gift M$ could do for my birthday ; )
We almost work exclusively in shell where I am an Exchange Engineer (familiar name everyone has heard of on tv) and would not return to gui. There are still some huge gaps in server management with PowerShell like group policy ( I know there is a module, but would like it to do a lot more) that they need to fill before we can live gui free.
"It doesn't matter how they administer the server, as long as it's stable and secure."
Quite a sensible answer.
But then, please answer me quite a simple question: "today something has broken Âwhat has been changed since yesterday?"
This question has an almost trivial answer for the vast part of unix-like systems, not quite so in windows-world.
There it goes your stability and security.
And now, one thing is one server and another beast one thousand. Again, "I want one thousand servers just like this, but not exactly the same", an almost trivial answer on unix/bsd/linux, but a difficult one on windows with, again, resounding implications on the stability and security realm.
Lucky for most of us, we understand the article is simply saying that MS is just trying to get devs to make server software also functional by command line. RATHER than just 'GUI only so there..' - how ever hopless a linux person will say this will be, it's not a bad idea long term..
Windows Server is clearly the best solution for small businesses, 5,10,25 staff. The small business can outsource a few hours a week if needed to an IT company, they also can appoint a staff member to simply change passwords, add users, change backup HD or get data from an old backup HD (not tape lol). They can also restart the server if needed. It also means they are not bound to a specific support company, pretty much *ANY* IT support company can make their way around a windows server in a small business environment.
I used to run a small IT support company myself and the worst thing was when a small business was 'sucked' into a linux 'solution'.. usually the 'IT Company' would argue that it will save $$ on software but in the end they charged $$ to setup and maintain their messy/secret linux server.. the worst cases was when a noob/scriptkiddy would setup a 'linux server' and then 12 months later left or is not contactable.
Then the small business owner was lelft with a mess, other IT companies just come along, bitch about it then just say 'oh format and re-install "Our way"...again they might be competent and be all wonderful like all the linux guys here on /. but... ffsake, the small business just wants easy file/print sharing, backup, VPN, NAT, DHCP, Exchange/email server that is not a pain in the ass.. plus don't forget the specific software the company uses on each terminal etc. This is a MAJOR part, industry specific software is 90% windows, there are plenty of server end software that you can BUY and solve something for the small business with windows servers. But Linux on the other hand has a far smaller range of PAID solutions.. many are mostly alpha/beta/home made hobby that offers little to no support..
So at the end of the day, I support Linux for all the 'proper' servers that everyone talks about here and that's fine for a university and large network with a full time IT crew, but in the real world small business like Solicitors, Accountants, Motel/Hotels, Printers, local Newspapers etc etc want an easy solution that they can maintain themselves and call in any good IT support firm to help do the 'hard' stuff here and there.. Also as a small business owner myself I don't have the time to worry about a server/networking, I just set it all up and it just works, at any time I can easly manage things within a fraction of time.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing Microsoft has ever done. Build a gui into a server os? No, that is not necessary, but for Christ's sake build a gui based operational ui that runs on windows clients and gives the admin control of the sever os installation. Duh... All the cli snobbery is nothing but that: snobbery. It's beyond retarded.
Social Credit would solve everything...
Finally the people at my school will at least have a clue as to what exactly a CLI is, and how to use it. All those compulsory tutorials for Win 2003/08 server installations and maintenance made me hate Microsoft even more. Being a Linux user for just 5 years has made me almost impossible to live without the command line.
Could they possibly be thinking about making HyperV on gui-less server 8 competitive with ESX? VMWare has been eating their lunch for a good while now, and the licensing changes in 5.0 have rocked the boat a little. HyperV was a tough sell before due to, among other things, the extra resources you had to dedicate to running the host OS. If MS could slim that down, maybe they get some market share back. 2008 Server Core was/is an OK start, but there wasn't really enough you could do with it. It is great for the stuff you can do.
PERL:
All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
Unfortunately, and if you've ever really delved into the world of windows you'd know this, Windows NT IS Xenix. The Xenix kernel is still alive and well and sits under windows wrapped up so nobody can get to it very easily. The root account is completely masked over as the Local System Account. Alas, the very heart of all releases of windows since Windows NT have been and will continue to be...Xenix. This is why they abandoned the windows 95/DOS kernel. Unwittingly, they admitted defeat around the millennium, and joined those of us who agreed *Nix was a better platform from the beginning. It's just taken another 12 years for them to realize the obvious.
I heard that in W8 M$ Paint will be in command line only.
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
Having no GUI, or an optional GUI, is a side effect of having a full scriptable configuration system. Since a couple of OS generations, Microsoft strongly shifted toward "cloud" services, that culminate with 2012 wave products like SCVMM (Virtual Machine Manager). Considering to deply "services" or "datacenters" instead of "simple" virtual machines, requires you to glue together OS, applications, data and lots of little things together. Here comes the need for a consistent shell language for all the products. This way you can have the GUI to work like issuing command lines to an interpreter. This is very evident in some older products like SCVMM2010 and Exchange for example. Windows 2008 R2 had .NET framework integrated in "no-GUI" mode for this reason.
Time to learn PowerShell bitches or go serve fries! I'm busting my balls now with Server 2008 to learn. Get the cash grab techs out, and make room for more real ones. Could go for the not having a GUI option for remote services however.
Windows are put into frames (here - your house builders may differ), so perhaps Windows without windows would be "Frames". Or "Framemaker?" NO, that doesn't work too well.
Or ... this would be WinDOWS without the "Win" and with a command LINe inserted ; so that would be LINDOWS then?
M icro S oft's new D esktop-less O perating S ystem would therefore be MS-DOS?
I've tried to work out something to bring DESQView into the game, but I can't. But damn, that was a good tool!
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
No, only server software needs to be written this way and most of it already is.
And you don't necessarily need client-server management service, you can always manually edit the configuration files or produce a gui which parses and generates configuration files.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Don't you use PsExec?
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Does this mean .NET programmers are going to have to learn code?
Given that most of the admin tasks for the windows servers are handled via remote-capable tools, this is a fine idea. You're already capable of managing a Windows server pretty much entirely from another machine (that has a GUI) anyway. You can already install a headless version of the server OS, which requires doing all the admin from another box. The message here is that it's likely the server OS will always come this way, with no GUI option at all. And it won't make a bit of difference to how the boxes are managed.
The upside is you won't have any GUI layer running on the server, and all the potential woes that come along with that. It'll be just, y'know, a SERVER.
has this list become a proxy server for the ins and outs of Microsoft. In my opinion it would be useful to ban the name of any vendor from this website.
ncurses. voila.
no GUI -BUT- a GUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ncurses
just throwing this out there; but sc can be used against remote machines.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It might not be much space on its own, but it adds up when you have large numbers of virtual images...
And any software you have installed needs to be patched, creating overhead... Plus the risk of security holes being found in it...
The less you have installed, the less risk and less admin attention required.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
An install of 40GB is pretty ridiculous, i have a VM cluster running 60+ virtual machines.. The average linux os install on my cluster is just under 2gb and i haven't made much effort to optimise them, thats still over 120gb consumed just by the os not counting the data...
Your 2TB array wouldn't be able to fit 60 of your 40gb windows images at all, even without any data.
If 10% of your 40GB is gui components, then your wasting twice as much space on gui components as my systems are for their entire os.
Mass storage may well be cheap, but the price soon goes up once you want reliable redundant storage, high performance storage, somewhere to store backups etc... I can't just buy a cheap 2TB HDD and throw it in, i need multiple drives for redundancy, i need to make sure i have sufficient chassis to put them in, i need to pay for the rackspace and power that these chassis will use...
And don't mention deduplication, that's basically a way of over committing... Making your machines think they have more space than they really do, if something happens which forces it try and use all the space there could be catastrophic results.
Also, just because something is cheap, no reason to use it inefficiently.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
People have been running big tasks on the big hardware and seeing it on some form of external terminal for decades. The geophysicists where I work run intensively interactive graphical stuff on a 48 core machine (among others) but control it in real time from their far less capable desktop systems. Being seismic data it is comprised of millions of audio samples per survey so is directly comparable to your example - right down to most likely employing the same types of filtering and noise reduction. Far more complex tasks are done in real time in other places with far larger clusters.
With the wonders of 1990s technology (and later) you don't have to be sitting at the computer you are using to be able to interact in real time with it - AND (the entire point I was trying to make) - the server doesn't need any graphical hardware or software to directly handle the display to get that job done. It just does the numbers and says to the local computer "here's some stuff that you can put on your screen - work out how to do it yourself".
Deduplication in memory.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Continuing on what I stated in my last post parent to this one: U can pass structures (part of objects) by value in their member components!
(Bypassing only being able to pass say, a SINGLE parameter (Yes, there are OLD C compilers that only allowed single parm passing))...
This is also technically nearly unlimited in size pretty much for doing that!
* NO, unlike objects (which have structures in them along with functions to act on said structure data)? You MUST pass structures elements & structures themselves, by value (not by reference to memory locations as you do with objects).
APK
P.S.=> Had to add that one on, it's better than "String Stripping" for passing multiple parms (but not as good, imo @ least, as having compilers that accept multiple parameters, especially those with OPTIONAL clauses). This effectively allows one to "script" GUI apps (then, there's also apps with SCRIPTING BUILT IN - look @ webbrowsers, &/or Adobe PDF's for example: Javascript processing & other languages processing are "built in" to them)... apk
When using the MOVE command, you will receive
"Cannot create a file when that file already exists."
if any file already exists.
MV.CMD to circumvent this problem. The syntax is:
mv
Wildcards (*) are supported.
Examples:
mv \SourceFolder\*.log \TargetFolder\*.log
mv \SourceFolder\*.log \TargetFolder\*.txt
mv \SourceFolder\*.log \TargetFolder\*.*
mv \SourceFolder\file*.log \TargetFolder\*.log
MV.cmd contains:
@echo off /i %p2%==%px% goto same /i %p2%==%px% set x2=.*&goto same :same /f "Tokens=*" %%i in ('dir /b %p1%') do call :movit "%%i" :syntax :movit :move1 /q /f "%p2%" :move2 :end
setlocal
if %2=="" goto syntax
set p1=%1
set p2=%2
set p2=%p2:"=%
set p2="%p2%"
set fp1=%~DP1
set fp2=%~DP2
set f2=%~N2
set x2=%~X2
if "%f2%"=="" set f2=*
if "%x2%"=="." set x2=.*
set px="%fp2%%f2%%x2%"
if
set px="%fp2%%f2%.*"
if
set f2=*
pushd %fp1%
for
popd
endlocal
goto end
@echo Syntax - MV
endlocal
goto end
set p2=%fp2%%f2%%x2%
if "%f2%"=="*" goto move2
if "%x2%"==".*" set p2=%fp2%%f2%%~X1
if exist "%p2%" del
move %1 "%p2%"
goto end
set p2=%fp2%%~N1%x2%
if "%x2%"==".*" set p2=%fp2%%~N1%~X1
goto move1
---
* Hope that helps & proves to be a better "MOVE" command that is the default, AND, that it "turns you on" to what the other posted noted - the power of DOS batch that still exists in modern Windows!
APK
P.S.=> I put the above into MV.CMD (not mv.bat, because the commandshell interpreter's now cmd.exe in 32-bit &/or 64-bit modern Windows NT-based OS variants... not command.com (though that does exist on 32-bit versions of Windows NT-based OS, as a 16-bit compatibility))...
... apk
No, not really. You'd have to have an entire legion of virtual machines on the same physical machine before it really matters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion