Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2012

Barence writes "Microsoft has released Windows Server 2012, letting businesses test it for 90 days on the Azure cloud platform for free. There are two versions of the main edition of Windows Server 2012: one with virtualization support and one without. The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882. There's also an Essentials version, which replaces Small Business Server, for $501 per server, and Windows Server 2012 Foundation, which will only be available pre-installed on hardware." Ars has a detailed look at the new edition.

Comments

frist

[Anonymous Coward]

in b4 lunix trolls

Re:frist

[chucklebutte]

in b4 lunix trolls

I see what you did there.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

So bad and yet still miles better than any Linux based operating system or OS X.

Re:frist

[0123456]

So bad and yet still miles better than any Linux based operating system or OS X.

That'll be why the world runs on Windows servers and no-one would think of putting any critical service on Linux.

Re:frist

[tenex]

That has got to be one of the better examples of properly applied sarcasm I've see here in a while.

Good play...

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

"appallingly difficult"... You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means....

If you find backing up Windows appallingly difficult, then you, my friend, should not be managing Windows... Backing up Windows is very easy. You just use the backup utility.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, up until Windows 7/Windows 2008 R2, was more of a toy than a true enterprise solution.

Re:frist

[DeSigna]

In comparison, it's quite a bit more difficult. But yes, there are complex tools available to handle all the nasty stuff behind the curtain.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

With 2008, the built-in backup facility no longer writes to tapes, so it essentially disappeared. Yes, tapes are still used a lot in the enterprise. But then, in the enterprise, you run an expensive 3rd party tape backup software... which all the big name brands support backing up the Windows system and its configs just fine and easy.

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

I find backing up the registry in a fashion that allows me to easily restore configurations a real pain. NTBackup and it's descendants are hardly backup wonders. Configuration via text file is infinitely easier to deal with than binary hives.

I don't even bother restoring failed domain controllers any more. I have other DCs replicating AD data so I just build a new server, promote it to a DC and let replication do the heavy lifting. Hrlluva lot easier than what passes for bare metal recovery in the Windows world.

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

The thing with *nix, or at least any version I've worked with, the functionality is already there. Configurations are almost always in human-readable text files, and I have a toolset that has been around in one form or another for decades to work with those files. I can easily make backups of daemon configurations, and indeed have been able to restore a server with the contents of /etc and the data files.

Re:frist

[benjymouse]

For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.

So, how does Linux handle online backups of running server workloads? Does Linux have a way to signal to running services (like RDBMSs, hypervisors, file servers) that a backup is about to happen, negotiate which files are to be included in the backup and then in a fragment of a second work with the running service to synchronize disk content so that the backup will be consistent?

A running database server will almost invariably hold some state in memory. If the power is lost it will be able to rebuild from the disk state, but that can be a time consuming task. If the backup system is simplistic it will just back up the disk state of any file. Upon restoring it will appear as if the power was lost and the roll-forward log will have to be played.

A more advanced backup system will integrate with the services to ensure that for a very brief time (just enough to take a snapshot) the disk state is consistent and thus will not require a rebuild/roll forward if it is ever restored.

Windows comes with Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) and a file system which supports block level snapshots. VSS works with VSS aware applications (VSS writers) such as Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle Database Server, Exchange Server, Active Directory, NTFS and Hyper-V server. When a service is a VSS writer it participates in VSS coordination/synchronization to create consistent disk state.

It even works through Hyper-V: When you back up the Hyper-V host, Hyper-V itself is a VSS writer which recursively invokes the VSS running inside guest OSes (if Windows) to ensure that any service inside the Hyper-V guest OS is also disk consistent exactly when a snapshot of the virtual hard disk image is created.

To my knowledge, Linux doesn't have anything like VSS. Which means that each application/service must be handled separately. Typically you will stop the service during the backup. Some services such as PostgreSQL can recover from a non-consistent disk image; others can not. Individual applications may have commands/services which allow admins to "dump" state to a file to be backed up separately. All in all reliably backing up a running Linux server is more complicated compared to backing up a running Windows server with VSS aware services.

Re:frist

[Gumbercules!!]

That's utter nonsense. Windows Server Backup is about a billion times better then NTBackup. Pure image based backup, allowing multiple versions of files to be stored, Exchange aware, SQL aware and allowing individual files to be restored, easily. I would use WSBU over NTBackup any day of the week (and do). It works every time - and offers damn near instant bare metal recovery of corrupted servers. NTBackup, on the other hand, required you to rebuild from scratch and then manually restore files, apps, etc, painfully.

Just because you never learned how to use a tool doesn't make it bad. It is trivial to configure WSBU to backup individual components, such as system state, volumes or yes, even individual folders. Again - *you* not knowing how to do something doesn't make it impossible.

And for the obligatory Slashdot 2012: no, I am not paid or affiliated in anyway with Microsoft. Sometimes people like the changes they make because they actually tried them and found them better.

Re:frist

[Penguinisto]

Dunno - I find it infinitely easier to just restore the VM from snapshot, and failing that, restore from the SAN snapshot, and failing all that, restore that VM straight off of tape (the last bit may be a hair outdated, but it still works).

The days of restoring a server on bare metal ended a long, long time ago for me. Kinda glad to see the $#@%(*! concept dying off.

Re:frist

[flyingfsck]

Yup, running Windows on bare metal is a total pain in the arse. Windows is only viable and supportable as a VM.

Re:frist

[red crab]

Yep, and regedit is as intuitive as vi.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

If you *ever* have to backup/restore a registry setting in a Windows environment, then you're managing it wrong.

And I'm not sure why you seem to imply that being able to replace a failed DC with a simple install + promote procedure is a bad thing. That's exactly the way you're supposed to do things and it just works. The 'state of the art' in the Linux world, which largely consists of trying to copy back all the right text config files to the right places (and hoping you got them all) is an unbelievably clunky way of doing systems management.

Re:frist

[LordLimecat]

Last time I looked at it was when Server 2008 was released. This isnt an issue of "didnt take the time to learn it"-- at that time, the official stance as given on the official Exchange team blog was "it was crippled it so that noone would make the mistake of using it for business". To reiterate-- this was the OFFICIAL exchange blog, ie microsoft employees.

Its entirely possible that in the time since they have corrected the issues I mentioned, or brought it back as something new-- but they definately DID cripple the built in backup on the release of 2008. Im not sure how possible it would be to find that article as it was a blog entry and it was 5 or so years ago, but Ill give it a shot and post it here if I do manage to find it.

Re:frist

[LordLimecat]

I found it:
Windows server backup not exchange aware
We have decided to develop and release a VSS-based plug-in for Windows Server Backup that will enable you to properly backup and restore Exchange 2007 with a built-in Windows 2008 backup application.
While you will be able to backup and restore Exchange 2007 on Windows 2008, you should not expect feature parity with the Windows 2003 NTBackup experience.

The removal of NTBackup / its (known) inferior successor:
(Reasons listed there roughly boil down to, 1) most people get third party software; 2) ntbackup was never meant to be an enterprise solution; 3) we think optical media is the future and that tape sucks)

There are lots and lots of other posts on this. More to the point, the features you mention are brand new as of R2-- they were not there in the original release:
Windows Server Backup in Windows Server 2008 R2 includes the following improvements:
More flexibility in what you can back up. Windows Server Backup enables you to back up selected files instead of full volumes. You can also exclude files based on file type and path.

That is, you simply couldnt do this prior to R2, which, along with no tape and no exchange support, made it utterly fall off of my (and many others') radars as utterly irrelevant. Basically all of the cool features you mention simply werent there in the initial release-- it was a straight dumb "image the whole box or nothing at all" program, except it wouldnt even work if you had stuff like Exchange or HyperV and no VSS plugin.

Not only that, but even if I had noticed that release-- which TBQH i did not-- NTBackup was already such a disaster that I would be hesitant even now to return to something like WSB.

It sounds like your experience is mostly with Win Server R2 and above, which is fine; if thats true, just keep in mind that there are a lot of us with horror stories of NTBackup, and that WinServer2008 was not always as polished as it is now.

Re:frist

[siDDis]

So if I run PostgreSQL on Windows I can be sure VSS executes psql -c "select pg_start_backup(‘hourly’,true);" before creating the snapshot?

My FreeBSD PostgreSQL backup looks like this and runs hourly.

#!/bin/sh
prev=`date -v-1H '+%Y-%m-%d_%H'`
now=`date '+%Y-%m-%d_%H'`
psql -c "select pg_start_backup(‘hourly’,true);"
zfs snapshot tank/pgsql@$now
psql -c "select pg_stop_backup();"
zfs send -R -i tank/pgsql@$prev tank/pgsql@$now | ssh backup@hpbackup zfs receive -Fdu tank/backup/pgsql

You can do the similar thing with Linux as BTRFS now support send and receive.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of LVM and LVM snapshots? A zillion times better than VSS

Re:frist

[cdwiegand]

Uh... yeah, and then try copying that to another machine. Or comparing it for differences to see what you messed up that's causing some service not to work. On linux - diff -r /etc /backup_drive/2012-09-01/etc - oh, I messed up the dhcp.conf! Duh!

Backing up Linux is SUPER EASY, it's all text, and therefore comparable, compressible, clone-able. Windows is all binary and junk. That said, Windows prevents you from doing some stupid things (like putting a gateway outside of your netmask) because you have to use the GUI to make those changes, so it's not all roses on the Linux side.

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

And how exactly do you solve the problem of stale AD domain controllers? Restoring a DC image, particularly in a multi-DC environment means you have to then immediately restore all the AD objects from... You guessed it... backup.

Re:frist

[jtseng]

Windows comes with Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) and a file system which supports block level snapshots. VSS works with VSS aware applications (VSS writers) such as Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle Database Server, Exchange Server, Active Directory, NTFS and Hyper-V server. When a service is a VSS writer it participates in VSS coordination/synchronization to create consistent disk state.

...

To my knowledge, Linux doesn't have anything like VSS. Which means that each application/service must be handled separately. Typically you will stop the service during the backup. Some services such as PostgreSQL can recover from a non-consistent disk image; others can not. Individual applications may have commands/services which allow admins to "dump" state to a file to be backed up separately. All in all reliably backing up a running Linux server is more complicated compared to backing up a running Windows server with VSS aware services.

I am currently running a number of VMs using CentOS KVM with virtual disks being hosted on volumes being managed by LVM. Granted KVM and LVM are separate entities, but they can be made to work together to achieve the same result you mention above. I've backed up and restored VMs a number of times (as validation tests) and it's pretty robust.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, up until Windows 7/Windows 2008 R2, was more of a toy than a true enterprise solution.

Wow. In any other company's products, improving a feature to be more useful is celebrated.
If it's a Microsoft product, the fact that it didn't do then what it does today is held as a counterpoint to how it's done today.
Thanks, /.

Re:frist

[highphilosopher]

Please provide a reference for such a statistic. I could just as easily say "AIX is on 1.6 billion servers wordlwide," but no one would believe me. Not even me. If you ever want to believe in yourself, PROVIDE REFERENCES!!!

Re:frist

[benjymouse]

Have you ever heard of LVM and LVM snapshots? A zillion times better than VSS

Yes, I know about LVM. But LVM is a *file system* volume manager. It *cannot* ensure that applications which caches state in memory (such as databases and most other daemons/services) flushes the state to disk en refrain from polluting the state until a snapshot has been taken. LVM ensures that file system buffers are flushed to disk before a snapshot is taken. It does NOT ensure that the application has flushed state not already written to the file system. To tell me, how is LVM snapshots "a zillion times better than VSS"?

Re:frist

[benjymouse]

I am currently running a number of VMs using CentOS KVM with virtual disks being hosted on volumes being managed by LVM. Granted KVM and LVM are separate entities, but they can be made to work together to achieve the same result you mention above.

No, you still cannot integrate with applications. To my knowledge there is no OS defined way to tell applications to flush to disk, hold their breath, confirm, wait for an "as you were". It is actually a bit more complicated than that, because the application (e.g. a database server) may have state spanning multiple volumes - and snapshots need to be taken in synch on all volumes.

With the set of applications you use (PostgreSQL, for instance, is quite resilient) you may indeed not experience any problems. I would expect, however, that after a restore you will be able to find warnings indicating that the system was not shut down orderly - or something to that effect.

Re:frist

[benjymouse]

So if I run PostgreSQL on Windows I can be sure VSS executes psql -c "select pg_start_backup(‘hourly’,true);" before creating the snapshot?

No. PostgreSQL is not a VSS Writer. That's a limitation of PostgreSQL - it fails to take advantage of a service provided by one of the OSes on which it runs. A service which makes backups (and recovery) simpler and more robust. Granted, I don't think Windows is the most important platform for PostgreSQL.

However, Oracle, for instance, is a VSS Writer, i.e. it registers with VSS and participates in the protocol that ensures file consistency during backups. So consider that you have an Oracle instance running inside a VM with virtual harddisks in files on the host system. When you backup that host system, the VSS will ask Hyper-V to ensure consistent state of the harddisk image file. Hyper-V does that by asking the VSS service of the guest OS to ensure disk consistency. This VSS service in turn asks the Oracle instance to ensure disk consistency (flush memory state and refrain from polluting it).

At this time the snapshot is created in the host OS and the the VSS service again tells Hyper-V to continue normal operation. Hyper-V tells the VSS of the guest OS to continue normal operation. The VSS of the guest OS tells the Oracle instance to continue normal operation - i.e. it is again allowed to service requests which can pollute the state. IIRC this entire process is guaranteed to complete in less than 1/10th of a second.

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

just replicate the database to another vm (any self respecting db engine will do that) and backup the slave database server using the vendor recommended tools. No production downtime, no hassles. Extra bonus, if the master server gets borked, promote the slave to master and you're back on business in no time.

And by the way, vss has it share of problems. Like the vss exchange provider failing and not rotating the transaction logs (great way to fill your exchange hard disks and crash your exchange server). Or when the sql server vss provider prevents the maintenance plan from running properly. Good times, good times.

So even though vss is nice, I would not go so far as to saying that thanks to vss backing up Windows stuff is easier. Backing up stuff in linux is usually very straight forward, a couple of commands and that's it. Windows backup up tools have nicer gui's, though. Apparently that is more important than having a good backup nowadays.

Re:frist

[Penguinisto]

Given the timeframe involved with restoring a snapshot, I bet I can bring it back up before the other DCs even realize it was offline :)

(and with FT on for the first DC in the environment, I don't even have to care that one of the VMs in the pair crashed. )

Re:frist

[DigiShaman]

Windows 2008 backup is already obsolete.

"Note: You cannot use Windows Server Backup to back up file and folders on volumes that require more than 2040 GB (or 2 TB). However, as long as the data size is less than 2 TB, you can perform a file or folder backup. For example, you can back up 1.5 TB of data from a 3-TB volume. But, a full server or volume recovery using the backup will recreate a 2-TB volume instead of a 3-TB volume."

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753528.aspx

Also, Windows 2008 Backup does not support 4k sector external backup drive. It will support the standard 512 or newer 512e sectors however (emulated and formatted with a vendor provided utility).

Basically to sum it all up, you *must* go with another backup solution. Even if you keep your internal server partitions under 2TB in size, almost all newer external drives are now designed with 4k sector sizes.

Yes, I'm a Windows Server admin. And yes, this fact is frustrating as hell having to inform clients they will need to go with Backup Exec or some other 3rd party backup solution. Especially if they desire BMR functionality.

Re:frist

[DigiShaman]

I'm bookmarking this thread. Benjy, this is an excellent point you bring up. I'm a Windows Server admin, and rarely if ever touch Linux. Though in production we do run a LAMP server as a VM in Hyper-V. Anyways, I hope some Linux guru can answer your question clearly as I would like to know the answer to this as well.

Re:frist

[DigiShaman]

Windows backup up tools have nicer gui's, though. Apparently that is more important than having a good backup nowadays.

Thinking you have good backups and knowing you have good backups are two entirely separate things. When it comes to backups, functionality is extremely important regardless of the interface. However, having a nice GUI helps immensely with visual identification of jobs, backup processes, and backup data sets (fulls and incrementals). However you can go overboard with TMI. Take Backup Exec for example. Holy shit is that visual mission control console or what?!

Re:frist

[Anonymous Coward]

What worries me is that you somehow think this is an innovation. We do all of these things and have done (and have to - we run a national 6x9 operation, that is 99.9999% uptime, 28 mins *reduced* availability per year) for years without stopping anything. Look out of your little tiny Microsoft BS filled walled garden, and you'll find that there are things out there that you never imagined existed. All these problems have been solved for many years, and Microsoft is just catching up.

WHAT!?

[X0563511]

$4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

Re:WHAT!?

[X0563511]

Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

$4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

It also allows for unlimtied virtualised Windows 2k12 installs under that one license...

Re:WHAT!?

[SJHillman]

Isn't that true of pretty much every software with multiple versions? The code already exists. However, I would hope the virtualization support isn't actually installed unless it's needed.

Re:WHAT!?

[X0563511]

OK, that makes more sense then. My mistake...

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtualization support in Data Center also included running UNLIMITED copies of the OS on a single virtualized server. For example, let's say I have a vSphere cluster with 2 hosts, 4 CPU's per host. I can buy 8 Windows Data Center licenses (1 for each processor) and then run 60 virtual Windows servers on that hardware without additional server licensing.

It's a benefit, and only makes sense at that large a quantity of servers, but it is a benefit.

Re:WHAT!?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

2k12

Seriously...

Re:WHAT!?

[FaxeTheCat]

Virtualization (Hyper-V) is a role which is not installed by default. Has been that way with all Windows versions with Hyper-V .

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

SLES does this as well, and the SLES license + HA Tools license (DRBD, etc) is $799 + (IIRC) $499. So, I dunno, $4k still seems a bit high priced.

Re:WHAT!?

[afidel]

Actually that would be 4 licenses (each one covers two sockets, the old license scheme was hard to figure out for the most common use case of a 2 socket box).

Re:WHAT!?

[alphatel]

Each copy of Windows Standard includes TWO virtual instances for $800. Under the old agreement it was 1 License = 1 Copy.
Each copy of Datacenter includes UNLIMITED copies of Windows for $4800.
Or buy Essentials with NO virtualization for $500 (you can still run it on a virtual machine, but only ONE copy)

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under the old agreement it was 1 License = 1" physical installation + 1 virtual installation.
technically you could run win server as hypervisor for a win server as a guest.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always use HyperV 3.0 for free. Server 2012 with virtualization just means a pretty UI vs HyperV with powershell.

Re:WHAT!?

[FaxeTheCat]

...but to be honest, if you are not going to run Windows in those VMs, then ESXi is a much better choice for a free hypervisor...

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the code being already there have to do with it? Of course the code is there. The cost isn't in sending you a copy of the code...it's in paying hundreds of highly-educated engineers and programmers to create it.

Re:WHAT!?

[mythosaz]

Seriously... ...says the guy named Forty Two Tenfold, complaining about '2k12'

Re:WHAT!?

[mythosaz]

Expressed as a percentage of the cost of virtualization environment, both numbers are almost meaningless after you factor in tiny things like storage.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember where you're posting. This is a linux forum. These kids don't get out of the basement and don't do virtualization in a real environment. These are basement-dweller budgets we're talking about. Your post is meaningless here. "Storage" is a few hundred bucks to them.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"comparatively tiny market share of the server market..."

You're kidding, right?

Re:WHAT!?

[bloodhawk]

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

You're kidding right??? Their server market share would have to be at or close to an all time high with a majority share.

Re:WHAT!?

[amirulbahr]

If you buy Standard and wish to run it under another hyper-visor, such as KVM or ESXi, are you entitled to run three instances, two, or one?

Re:WHAT!?

[Mike Buddha]

Seriously... ...says the guy named Forty Two Tenfold, complaining about '2k12'

Well, he is high.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite right.
Under the old license you had 1 server, 1 windows VM license, but could run as many linux, bsd or other operating systems as you wish.

The new way only allows two of any OS VM to be run. You can buy additional windows licenses to get more VMs though.

Re:WHAT!?

[CrashNBrn]

Server Market Share, based on hardware sales (excluding software licensing)
2012 Q1: Windows: 50.2%, Unix +Linux: 38.9% --- IDC

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for most of the tooling needed to make use of the 'free' ESXi hypervisor costs you a pretty penny last I checked.

Re:WHAT!?

[LordLimecat]

Its also not new. 2008 had this licensing clause. They also allow you to use a single Enterprise license ($2k) to cover up to 4 instances, though unless you really need the enterprise features it doesnt save you any money over the $500 license (though I believe it comes with more CALs).

Re:WHAT!?

[LordLimecat]

We're doing this right now, and it rocks. Someone says "we need a new Windows server". No problem-- roll out the VMWare template, 15 minutes later the server pops on already joined to the domain and activated.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

$4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

This is incorrect the virtualization is free. (Hyper-V server anyone?)
4k is for unlimited license on that server.
If you run only 2 cores and less than 10 virtual servers, you will save money by licensing the standard version.

Re:WHAT!?

[LordLimecat]

The license granted to allow you to run Hyper-V is a fake license-- you cant re-use it if you use a different hypervisor. It can ONLY be used for a host that ONLY does Hyper-V, and nothing else.

Re:WHAT!?

[hairyfeet]

Thank the FSM that I don't do corporate anymore but frankly that doesn't surprise me one little bit. If there is one sentence that would describe MSFT as a company under Ballmer its "doesn't get it".

I mean here they are, already behind the ball when it comes to server deployments (last numbers I saw had MSFT doing well with SMBs but large corporate deployments are down with Linux growing) and dealing with a more well known and popular product with VMWare so what do they do? Play a game of "let's gouge" and kill any chance of gaining real share. BTW are they using that horrible metro UI on server? Really wouldn't shock me if they did at this point.

I have a feeling historians will look back upon this time and hold MSFT up as a shining example oof what happens when marketing takes over the company and Wall Street stock prices matter more than smart business moves. Of course playing let's gouge makes Wall Street happy in the short term but more often you gouge and customers start looking at exit strategies which when your competitor is free as in beer, well supported and runs all the software most corps depend on is NOT what you want people to do! Just one more dumbass move from the marketing team of Ballmer and Co, which considering his track record dumbass moves is pretty much SOP there now.

Re:WHAT!?

[postbigbang]

Lots of this "depends". Microsoft has lots of SQL Server going, and owns the Exchange turf. There are lots of MS "business partners", developers, and so forth. They've come along way. No, there is no UI formerly known as Metro. They've updated lots of stuff, including Hyper-V. Is VMware an equal? VMware has egalitarian support for OS versions; MS is kinda sort trying to do better about that, but most organizations walk around Microsoft, rather than trying to make it play with other stuff.

You can script the living hell out of Windows 2012 these days, and avoid mind-numbing UI problems, although they've changed that, too. They still have their problems. So does Linux, and Solaris. Their big goal is platform synch, so you'll stick with the program. Some are fleeing, some are figuring out BYOD, some just want a path of least resistance, although Microsoft is better than that. They still need entrepreneurship and a break in the habit of preannouncing stuff.

I wonder what Windows 9 will be like. Oh, wait-- I'm sure there's a leak somewhere.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out IBM with their PowerVM licensing. I think it's based on number of cores, but $20k easy..

Re:WHAT!?

[VortexCortex]

Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

I dunno (that word "dunno" is in the dictionary), having to add words to the dictionary is a double edged sword: On the one hand, I have to resort to a google search with define: [word] to check the spelling before adding a word. On the other hand it artificially inflates my vocabulary ego.

You can tell a lot about a person from their personal dictionary (in your profile directory as persdict.dat). Here's a random sampling from mine:

offline, Ouya, uncorrectably, favorable, strategize, captcha, aggregator, greebles, overridable, Zaphod, fairytales, reimplementations, unpublishing, vortices, public's, transducing, Occam, something's, Youtube, Higgs, loathesome, Transducing, melee, QoS, deduplication, everything's, malware, Centauri, programmatically, automata, reductio, unpatched, apps, Davlik, chronologic, emissive, phishing, Online, contacter, interoperate, patentability, unaffordability, Kinect, discoverability, transdimensional, Orbiter, comedically, indie, stateful, Assange, Ubuntu's, infringers, Compize, templating, aggregators, modders, unsubscribe, C'thulhu, virtualization, cyber, hacktivist, Endorphins, Eldritch, Terabyte, transduced, versioning, exaflop, Hitchhiker's, programming's, Transcoding, burrito, melatonin, Occam's, draggable, rebranding, Caffeinated, Comcast, platformer, miscommunications, destructors, immersive, begets, Modders, caffeinated, dirigible's, explodability, terraforming, Desynchronisation, noninfringing, netizens, all-nighter, microtransaction, transduce, microtransactions, unaffordable, Encephelon, eldritch, Moore's, defacto, endorphin, serivce, Netflix, prococol, Slashdot, Schooler's, vertices, rebranded, dystopian, Theora, leapt, reimplement, signedness, droids, millennia, gameplay, virtualized, exascale, incentivized, duopolies, conflagrate, Beeblebrox, strategizing, Cyberneticists, hitchhiker's, Icarus, debacle, desynchronization, absurdum, Wikipedia, loosers, cyberneticist, machinima, shaders, endorphins, ISP, rebrand, searchable, offline, Virgon, Vertices, Wasabi, Collider, Zombified, voxel, vortices, vertices, renderable, teleport, voxels, creational, Centauri, octupled, programmatically, Modder, admin, immediately, Schrödinger, dreamt, everything's, spelunking, mancubus, modding, Mobius, griefers, modders, Octree's, scriptable, Wolfensein's, Automasanti, versioning, thermite, teleporter, minification, platformer, sexualize, Tourette's, infringers, Automata, theremins, unobtainium, Encephelon, deconstruct, Reznor, modder, Machinima, Renderable, verifiably, online, octree, Torvalds, Octrees, teleportation, programatically, Virtualized, platformers, antumbra, Szechuan, gameplay, antihydrogen, Rijndael, tessellator, Nonillion, teleporters, plugins, tetromino, Cyberneticist

Re:WHAT!?

[flyingfsck]

Yup, been doing that for about 10 years. The only viable way to run Windows is as a VM.

Re:WHAT!?

[oztiks]

Provided it offers the same scope of features as VMWare it could in some ways be much cheaper.

Re:WHAT!?

[Pinhedd]

Depends on what you bought. Standard editions of Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 granted two licences. One which could only be used as a Hyper-V host (for any number of licensed VMs) and one which could be used as a virtual guest on that same host. Enterprise editions allowed for one host and 4 guests on the same hardware, datacenter and Itanium allowed for unlimited on the same hardware. Web does not include Hyper-V and as such does not grant this licence. It seems that they've done away with the Enterprise edition, having just Standard and Datacenter.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Last I saw Linux (all variants) were somewhere in the 65% of web servers in operation right now.

Re:WHAT!?

[sbditto85]

based on hardware sales

But when we buy our server hardware we buy them blank and install linux ourselves ... does it account for that type of situation? If not then revenue certainly would be skewed to M$ (that and in my experience it doesn't take as much hardware/$ to get similar performance from a linux server)

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did Servers only mean web servers?

Re:WHAT!?

[davester666]

Every so-called "partner" of MS walks around with their fingers crossed that they don't get big enough to be noticed by MS. Because once you get noticed, you are more likely to be wiped out by a vaporware announcement by MS than you are to even be bought out by them...

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

As do most Windows Server purchases. The majority of servers go into Enterprise environments, in those cases neither Linux nor windows comes prebundled.

Re:WHAT!?

[bloodhawk]

Huh? Last I saw Linux (all variants) were somewhere in the 65% of web servers in operation right now.

No,65% of web SITES in operation are on Linux. There is a very significant difference as hosters are parkers are very much in the Linux space as Apache seems to run the massive hosting models better than IIS, I would guess Linux probably still has the larger server base for web servers, but that is only one fragment of the server market.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be a geek to the core! You might want to correct "Wolfensein's" though =)

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

MS SQL is nothing special and can be replaced FOR FREE. Exchange brings nearly as many problems as it does solutions but admittedly, some enterprises have gotten addicted to it.

The other attributes you mention can be had on a Linux box FOR FREE.

For 4 grand, the product needs to offer more than workarounds that make it not so much worse than the FREE alternative.

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

My Debian workstation with KVM allows unlimited virtualized Linux installs (any flavor) and cost nothing. I am free to run other OS under it as well, but have to license those separately. I was not forced to agree to be audited by the BSA commandos.

It would be a good idea for MS to offer something between all or nothing, such as a lesser cost for virtualization support without the included Windows licensing if (for example) you want to run Linux instances.

Re:WHAT!?

[postbigbang]

I didn't comment on the quality of these two products, rather, their statistical popularity. Yes, there are free alternatives, and I use one, personally. Outlook/Office was a combination that worked early on, for better and worse, and made many people addicted to the platform. There are alternatives, some good with good support, and some plainly dreck.

Free is good. Works is better. Free and works is best. But TANSTAAFL, and having support mechanisms for sophisticated infrastructure is important, too.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why you get the datacenter version, with unlimited virtual instances. for 4800, and stack consolidation ratios of 30:1+

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

That depends on the environment. 2TB SATA/SAS drives aren't all that costly these days.

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

So how many instances is that in a leap year where there is a blue moon in August if the licensee's name is Phil?

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

The problem with that method is that when a machine ships with some version of Windows and it is blown away to install Linux without even booting Windows first, it gets counted as a Windows box.

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

I wouldn't call Linux a free lunch, you still have to maintain it, of course. But it is vastly cheaper since you don't have to pay the plate fee, utensil rental, seat cleaning surcharge and hire an accountant to figure out the bill.

Windows has to be maintained as well, the license cost is just the up-front part.

Re:WHAT!?

[pak9rabid]

Only an idiot would pay the extra $$ for Windows Server (which isn't cheap), only to wipe it and install Linux. Typically, these users purchase a server with either a Linux distro pre-installed (such as RHEL), or no OS at all and install it themselves (usually the latter case).

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

Sure, not the top of the line Windows server, but many get stuck with a generic Windows installed on machines and end up wiping it off. It's called the MS tax and it's real.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't give you a "real" number. This is servers "Sold" with an OS installed. Where I work and what a lot of data centers do is buy their servers with no OS installed. Your numbers don't show the percent of servers sold with no OS. We buy our servers this way no matter if it will end up running Windows or Linux. We buy hardware. We turn it into a server.

Re:WHAT!?

[helix2301]

Just use hyper-v for virtualization if need be cheap enough.

Re:WHAT!?

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

Yeah but we're talking about the server market, not the desktop market. In a consumer workstation it may be impossible to buy a blank machine, but it's very easy to do in the server market.

Re:WHAT!?

[sjames]

I have wiped a default Windows install off of more than one server. I don't mean workstaton used as server, I mean 1U rack mount.

Re:WHAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

not in en_AU it's not. Virtualisation all the way baby!

To match Windows 8...

[Atti K.]

... it will need Metro-style management tools!

Re:To match Windows 8...

[formfeed]

... it will need Metro-style management tools!

The sad truth is, this shouldn't get a +1 Funny but a +1 Informative
I overheard a couple of "IT managers" at a University rave about their server management tools. If I understood correctly the Excel server is setup by clicking option boxes.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[danomac]

What's wrong with option boxes?

As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice? Sometimes configuring things through a GUI is faster. I'm all for that, especially if it can take less of my time.

For running scripted stuff, obviously the shell is better. Both are made for specific purposes.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[LordLimecat]

You might be joking, but ive tried the RC. Some manager must have thought the same thing you did, and thought it was a wonderful idea.

My analysis of Server 2012: Some new features that are mildly interesting, and the worlds most infuriating and confusing UI ever conceived.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[formfeed]

What's wrong with option boxes?

As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice? Sometimes configuring things through a GUI is faster. I'm all for that, especially if it can take less of my time.

For running scripted stuff, obviously the shell is better. Both are made for specific purposes.

Nothing is wrong with a GUI. I like it too, but the introduction of a GUI is somehow always followed by a herd of morons. And I don't know the causality there. Is it the people who can get something to work by just clicking defaults and then calling themselves experts, the company that can save money by employing people who really don't know what they're clicking on, or the GUIs that always seem designed to hide the complicated details so you can make it run even if you have no clue?

The outcome is the same, whether it is a mail server that then works perfectly with the newest windows, but not with imap, web developer tools that produce html with a new style for every paragraph, or a content management system that can't find its own links.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Penguinisto]

What's wrong with option boxes?

As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice? Sometimes configuring things through a GUI is faster.

...until you have to do it on 30 servers, in which case you're scripting it anyway. *shrug*

I just write once, run everytime. Easier that way, and doesn't require an RDP session.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[afidel]

do it once through the gui, pick up the powershell commands and then run them on as many servers as you need. It's really the best of both worlds and in many ways the object model of powershell is superior to the legacy shell environments.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you certainly do not.
Not unless you are happy to discard things like error handling and logging to your central logging facility.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Robert Zenz]

What's wrong with option boxes?As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice?

If there is a choice, that is.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Anonymous Coward]

Win12 reveals that Win8 *can* run a normal Desktop with a normal StartMenu.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/server-manager-w2008-r2.png

Is W12 the next XP, eh?

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Atti K.]

That's a screenshot from Windows server 2008 R2. Check the image caption: "The old Server Manager on Windows Server 2008 R2, for comparison purposes."

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Anonymous Coward]

So catch exceptions and log them?

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Penguinisto]

Why not just write the commands first?

Incidentally, I do like PowerShell quite a bit, but it's certainly no bash (let alone tcsh).

Re:To match Windows 8...

[afidel]

Because you might not know the Powershell commands to accomplish what you want to do. With the new Powershell based GUI tools you can build the command in the GUI and then inspect the generated Powershell commands and then re-purpose them.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[ixidor]

i am a powershell newb. can you please explain how to do this? sounds like a great way for me to elar more in powershell, look at what the gui stuff does then capture the powershell commands.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[afidel]

I'm only familiar with the Exchange 2010 EMC, but with it when you walk through a wizard the final step is to show you a summary of what's being performed and it allows you to view the Powershell. My understanding is that all the tools are moving in that direction.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[jonadab]

> ... it will need Metro-style management tools!

Oh, yes, please. I would love to see that. I think I might pay money to see that and, in particular, to watch Windows-server apologists trying to explain how much easier to administer Windows is with those tools. I bet I could watch video of that all day. My stomach muscles would probably hurt from laughing for a week. It would be even funnier than that hilarious Mozilla video on why "Tabs on top" is better.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[Atti K.]

I have actually installed it in the meantime to try out. It actually has the Windows 8 style start screen, but no real "Metro apps" installed. The new server manager runs on the desktop, but it has Metro-style controls. Horrible.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

This. A million times this.

I work a small startup MSP maintaining the networks for several small businesses. There are two of us. My average work day will have me dealing with everything from Exchange 2003 on Server '03 up to everything on an SBS 2011, with SQL, Sharepoint, and about 30 client specific apps (medical, CRMs, etc) in between. I honestly don't have the time to memorize Powershell. I know it's important, and it's something I'm working on, but when I sit down at the first machine running Exchange '07 that I've seen in 4 months, I don't have time to remember which cmdlets exist and what they are and how to syntax them, so I just open the GUI and hope I can get what I need done without googling the shell commands.

Is this ideal? No. Is it practical? Absolutely.

What exactly does it do?

[matthiasvegh]

So what exactly does it do that similarly equipped Linux machines/vps' can't do that justify the cost? I mean granted, it seems headless installation seems to finally work, but still..

Re:What exactly does it do?

[SJHillman]

Been a while since I've done Windows licensing, but does the license include support? If it does, then there's the main advantage of using Windows over Linux in any corporate environment.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Obsoletes some MCS* certificates perhaps.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...Linux comes with support as well...you just have to pay for it.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[afidel]

Run the 99% of commercial apps that are coded agaist the win32 api in a supported manner? Have vm management tools that don't suck horribly? I could go on but I'd just be further feeding the troll.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Pieroxy]

Ok, so your point is that you can run more commercial apps and that VM management isn't horrible. I have no experience with VM management under Linux nor Windows so I can't tell.

Is there anything else these $5k will bring over a Linux?

I'm genuinely asking as I'm not all that into Windows.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[vlm]

Wait...Linux comes with support as well...you just have to pay for it.

http://www.debian.org/consultants/

$5K would keep me in doritos and cheetos for awhile.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

We run a heterogeneous shop split about 50/50 between Linux (Debian) and Windows (2003/2008). Windows excels at certain things, Active DIrectory, and running .net apps delivered to us by various contractors. Our Linux systems run mission critical services as well as file-servers, and virtualization via VMWare's ESXi products (horribly overpriced but it's the situation that I inherited). I poke fun at the Windows guys fairly often and I get joked at in return, but the reality is that we all realize that it's about the right tool for the job. I don't have a single metal Windows install at home and I don't feel at all left out of the commercial loop, but like everything in life your own mileage will vary.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Nerdfest]

So basically, Windows is the right tool for things that only run on Windows ... otherwise, use Linux.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Yaa 101]

Keep the once trapped client in the environment where it belongs, why?

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

So basically, Windows is the right tool for things that only run on Windows ... otherwise, use Linux.

That sounds about right to me.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[benjymouse]

So what exactly does it do that similarly equipped Linux machines/vps' can't do that justify the cost?

* New resilient file system ReFS (think BtrFS when completed)
* Storage Spaces (think ZFS storage pools)
* SMB 3.0 - higher performance network transfer, transparent failover, SMB scaleout (multiple servers serve same shares and aggregates bandwidth), SMB Direct (efficient remote direct memory access), SMB Multichannel, Volume Shadow Service (VSS) for SMB file shares, SMB encryption, SMB Directory Leasing (negotiates and updates local caches of metadata over slow networks)
* Dynamic access control (claims and policy based access control). Think SELinux, grsecurity. Access control based on what application the user is running (sandboxing), from what type of device the user is accessing the resource, on other user attributes than security groups (e.g. who is the manager, what department does the user belong to etc), access control based on attributes of the file (e.g. classification, select words of a Word document)
* RemoteFX improvements, e.g. virtualized GPUs (can use local or remote shared GPUs during RDP sessions), remote low-latency multitouch.
* Direct Access over IPv4. Think hassle-free VPN.
* Hyper-V 3: ethernet cable live migration (neat trick) lets you migrate VMs off one server onto another server over the network without the servers sharing anything. Many Hyper-V manageability improvements. Crazy scalability, e.g. a 63-node Hyper-V cluster runs 4000 concurrent VMs simultaneously. Hyper-V replica.
* Server manager: Yes, a Metro (oops - "Modern") style management app for multiple servers. Integrates with response files and powershell workflow scripts to manage multiple computers (servers/workstations) at once - e.g. install new software, perform configure actions.
* PowerShell 3 with new features such as resilient remote connections (you can detach from a remote session and pick it up later/from another device), workflow scripts which can perform actions with suspend/restart/repeat semantics. No, not just "suspend process" - but actually persisting the state of a script to be continued later, e.g. after a computer restart (or from another machine).
* Thousands of new PowerShell cmdlets (many/most automatically derived from WMI providers) to control virtually anything on local or remote computers.
* Block sized data de-duplication

These are features I could find by googling. I'm sure there are more. Obviously not all of them will appeal to Linux enthusiasts. But still...

Re:What exactly does it do?

[interval1066]

Windows excels at certain things, Active DIrectory, and running .net apps...

Newsflash: can opener right tool for the job of opening cans, clip at 11.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can open them old school with a sharp kitchen knife you know...just sayin.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[LordLimecat]

Be able to integrate in a supported manner with 95% of business workstations out there? Be able to create an incredibly easy to manage LDAP system that integrates seamlessly with Exchange? Provides Exchange?

These arent exactly obscure features you know.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the Linux mentality alright... why use the right tool for the job when you can futz around for too long and end up with hand blood in the creamed corn.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, let us not forget that oldie goodie: "Linux is worth every cent you pay for it, if your time's worth nothing". :)

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

* Rights Management Services. DRM for enterprise docs.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Rutulian]

Ummm...?

* New resilient file system ReFS (think BtrFS when completed)
* Storage Spaces (think ZFS storage pools)
* Dynamic access control (claims and policy based access control). Think SELinux, grsecurity. Access control based on what application the user is running (sandboxing), from what type of device the user is accessing the resource, on other user attributes than security groups (e.g. who is the manager, what department does the user belong to etc), access control based on attributes of the file (e.g. classification, select words of a Word document)

So in other words, by your own description, things that you can already get in linux.

* SMB 3.0 - higher performance network transfer, transparent failover, SMB scaleout (multiple servers serve same shares and aggregates bandwidth), SMB Direct (efficient remote direct memory access), SMB Multichannel, Volume Shadow Service (VSS) for SMB file shares, SMB encryption, SMB Directory Leasing (negotiates and updates local caches of metadata over slow networks)
* Block sized data de-duplication

Ok, things linux doesn't have yet, but are on the way.

* Hyper-V 3: ethernet cable live migration (neat trick) lets you migrate VMs off one server onto another server over the network without the servers sharing anything. Many Hyper-V manageability improvements. Crazy scalability, e.g. a 63-node Hyper-V cluster runs 4000 concurrent VMs simultaneously. Hyper-V replica.

Ok, Microsoft's own hypervisor technology. To get this on linux you would need to purchase a proprietary solution, like VMware or Xen.

* RemoteFX improvements, e.g. virtualized GPUs (can use local or remote shared GPUs during RDP sessions), remote low-latency multitouch.

An admitted weakness in linux at the moment.

* Direct Access over IPv4. Think hassle-free VPN.

I really don't understand what this is. An automagic VPN? Doesn't sound all that special. NetworkManager has been able to do system-wide VPN connections for a while now.

* Server manager: Yes, a Metro (oops - "Modern") style management app for multiple servers. Integrates with response files and powershell workflow scripts to manage multiple computers (servers/workstations) at once - e.g. install new software, perform configure actions.
* PowerShell 3 with new features such as resilient remote connections (you can detach from a remote session and pick it up later/from another device), workflow scripts which can perform actions with suspend/restart/repeat semantics. No, not just "suspend process" - but actually persisting the state of a script to be continued later, e.g. after a computer restart (or from another machine).
* Thousands of new PowerShell cmdlets (many/most automatically derived from WMI providers) to control virtually anything on local or remote computers.

So the equivalent of what you can already do on linux with a combination of SSH, Puppet/Chef, and Screen. Admittedly an improvement for Windows, but this has always been a strength with linux.

All in all a meh, in my opinion. If you really have a need for the high-end features, perhaps Microsoft is offering at a competitive price. But otherwise doesn't seem to offer much that you can't already get with a linux, bsd, or solaris distribution.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Penguinisto]

True, but I can't recall the last time I ever had to call RedHat for anything. At all. Closest I ever came was when a DBA wanted some custom tweaks in RHEL, and some kind soul put the best ones to dig into (with full explanations) on Oracle's KB site (yeah, I know... bet the devil got hypothermia that day too).

Microsoft OTOH, especially for bugs that aren't (yet?) in the KB? hoo-boy.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, by your own description, things that you can already get in linux.

Did you miss the "when completed" part? Or are you that idiot admin who runs btrfs on production servers?

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it support 32 bit ODBC drivers? I've heard conflicting stories about this one

Re:What exactly does it do?

[afidel]

It's deprecated, the reasoning afaik is that syswow64 is optional in core so developers should not be designing new apps that rely on it.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[ScytheBlade1]

Sorry, but at least two of your points are factually incorrect.

* ReFS is lacking a few notable features, including file compression / encryption, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, disk quotas, and others[1]. You could say that the only notable improvements over NTFS that it has would be much improved resiliency and higher capacity limits. You can't compare this to BrtFS. At all. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. ReFS is there to store millions of large files and managed bad blocks in a smart way without taking the volume offline. It supports little else.
* Dynamic access control can't even be compared to SELinux. SELinux can restrict a program to running from a certain location, it can restrict which ports in the TCP/IP stack it can/can't open, it can restrict which hosts a specific process can talk to, and yes, it can alter the fundamental view of the file system hierarchy based upon access levels granted. Dynamic access control is really just more complexity in the form of an ACL on top of the already present windows file system ACLs, and it impacts nothing outside of files[2]. Now, you can use claims (which dynamic access control is built upon, at least partially) to control other aspects of your environment, but that isn't "dynamic access control" as far as MS is concerned. Further, it really is another layer of complexity -- if your claims server (which is a web server(!)) goes down, you're losing access to stuff (but if you're a decent sized MS shop, this will likely not be an issue, as you're already maintaining decent uptime on your DCs). Then the file system level ACL comes into play again. It's going to be crazy stupid hard to diagnose a claims access issue in a large production environment, no matter what MS has done towards fixing these issues. Somewhat amusingly, dynamic access control isn't supported on ReFS at all [2].

Now normally I'd just trust you that you googled around to find this stuff, but you've got some powershell in your signature, which leads me to believe that you've done a bit more checking than the "stereotypical slashdot linux sysadmin" and this only goes towards scaring me a bit.

[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/01/16/building-the-next-generation-file-system-for-windows-refs.aspx
[2] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831717.aspx

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're paying for Windows and getting Linux for free? Now that's sustainable!

Re:What exactly does it do?

[benjymouse]

So in other words, by your own description, things that you can already get in linux.

Did you miss the "when completed" part? Or are you that idiot admin who runs btrfs on production servers?

To be fair, I don't think ReFS will be on par - feature wise - with a completed BtrFS. ReFS focuses on the resiliency part. IIRC ReFS does not even implement all of NTFS's features.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[benjymouse]

So in other words, by your own description, things that you can already get in linux.

BtrFS has not been completed yet. ReFS is shipping. ReFS will not have all the features of the completed BtrFS, but for now ReFS offers features not available in any shipping Linux.

I don't think ZFS is production quality on Linux yet either. Storage Spaces under Windows is nor shipping.

Dynamic Access Control actually ups the ante for SELinux, grsecurity apparmor etc. While it still protects access to resources it does so based on potentially very fine grained policies which can express rules based on a very wide range of properties. And it brings claims based security all the way into the primary access control of an OS. Linux does not sport claims based security.

Ok, things linux doesn't have yet, but are on the way.

Sure. I am not aware of any effort to bring something like VSS to Linux, though. Windows now extends VSS to remote file systems (shares), which means that clients can ensure consistency even if an application/service stores files remotely (e.g. a SQL Server keeping it's data files on a remote server).

I really don't understand what this is. An automagic VPN? Doesn't sound all that special. NetworkManager has been able to do system-wide VPN connections for a while now.

Yes, an automagic always-on, bi-directional VPN on steroids. No calling, no VPN client installations. Just take the laptop outside the perimeter and it is still connected, still secured, still managed.

So the equivalent of what you can already do on linux with a combination of SSH, Puppet/Chef, and Screen. Admittedly an improvement for Windows, but this has always been a strength with linux.

All in all a meh, in my opinion. If you really have a need for the high-end features, perhaps Microsoft is offering at a competitive price. But otherwise doesn't seem to offer much that you can't already get with a linux, bsd, or solaris distribution.

Uhm, not quite. But unless you experience the new Server Manager you are not going to understand. It has this "declarative" feeling - comparable to controlling your network with declarative network policies as opposed to relying on scripts running on each node to set thing up.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I might be misunderstanding, but you use Linux to provide virtualization via ESXi? ESXi is not Linux. It uses several Linux-tools and a lot of its interfaces is certainly inspired by Linux, but the kernel is still not Linux.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Robert Zenz]

I see nothing in that list which doesn't exist in the *nix world one way or the other...

Re:What exactly does it do?

[olau]

All in all a meh, in my opinion. If you really have a need for the high-end features, perhaps Microsoft is offering at a competitive price. But otherwise doesn't seem to offer much that you can't already get with a linux, bsd, or solaris distribution.

I don't think I'll ever set up a Windows server, but it strikes me that this is probably good news for all those that run Windows servers. From the bullet points, it seems like impressive improvements.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[KiloByte]

BtrFS has not been completed yet. ReFS is shipping. ReFS will not have all the features of the completed BtrFS, but for now ReFS offers features not available in any shipping Linux.

Not all addons for BtrFS are completed, but the filesystem itself works -- and works well, while ReFS still lacks even basics such as booting. And as GP said, there's hardly anything in common between ReFS' and BtrFS' features.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[KiloByte]

Did you miss the "when completed" part?

BtrFS is not completed in the sense that Linux, Dungeon Crawl or Team Fortress 2 are not completed: new features get added all the time, but the core works remarkably well.

Or are you that idiot admin who runs btrfs on production servers?

What's the problem with that?

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Rutulian]

BtrFS has not been completed yet. ReFS is shipping. ReFS will not have all the features of the completed BtrFS, but for now ReFS offers features not available in any shipping Linux.

I don't think ZFS is production quality on Linux yet either. Storage Spaces under Windows is nor shipping.

I guess I should have qualified...many features are available and stable with BtrFS today, on Linux 3.2. If you need something more, like ZFS, it is available on BSD or one of the free Solaris distributions (if you're setting up servers, chances are you will be using a mix of the three). However, the architecture and intent of ReFS vs. BtrFS/ZFS is not really the same. And if we're talking about filesystems, one of the strengths of linux is access to unique special purpose fliesystems, like GlusterFS, NILFS, and XFS, if you have needs that are better suited by one of those. On Windows you really only have NTFS and I guess now ReFS.

Dynamic Access Control actually ups the ante for SELinux, grsecurity apparmor etc. While it still protects access to resources it does so based on potentially very fine grained policies which can express rules based on a very wide range of properties. And it brings claims based security all the way into the primary access control of an OS. Linux does not sport claims based security.

Ok, but let's see how it actually gets used. I don't know if you've actually ever used SELinux...there's a reason why almost no distribution ships with it enabled. It's a huge pain in the neck. Red Hat ships it with generic policies that kind of work, but don't really make use of its full capabilities. If you are storing military secrets, fine, but for most general purpose computing it just gets in your way. Creating even more fine-grained control just seems to me to be a feature set nobody will ever use.

Sure. I am not aware of any effort to bring something like VSS to Linux, though.

If you mean snapshotting, it is available in a number of different formats: at the block level (ZFS, NILFS), file level (BtrFS, OCFS2), volume level (ZFS, BtrFS, LVM2), and filesystem hack level (RSnapshot). I don't see what difference it makes whether it is a local or remote filesystem. It will work in both cases.

Yes, an automagic always-on, bi-directional VPN on steroids. No calling, no VPN client installations. Just take the laptop outside the perimeter and it is still connected, still secured, still managed.

Well, to be fair, you do still need to set it up. It doesn't just happen. The capability sounds a lot like IPsec to me, and this has been available on Linux for a long time. Windows too, but it seems they have added better integration with Active Directory.

Uhm, not quite. But unless you experience the new Server Manager you are not going to understand. It has this "declarative" feeling - comparable to controlling your network with declarative network policies as opposed to relying on scripts running on each node to set thing up.

Maybe you're right, I won't understand without actually using it. But based on your description, this sounds exactly like Chef. I would put this firmly in the "Microsoft playing catch-up" category, because this type of management has long been a strength on Linux.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[jonadab]

> So what exactly does it do that similarly equipped
> Linux machines/vps' can't do that justify the cost?

Oh, that's easily.

By integrating seamlessly with a Microsoft-Windows-based business network (including Software Assurance licensing), Microsoft Windows Server 2012 provides a suitable framework for Microsoft-certified business solutions. By partnering with Microsoft and building your product on Microsoft technologies, you ensure your access to the largest possible customer base.

Ewww

[kiriath]

This makes me sad... Microsoft needs to do more to enable everyone to use their software. Not everyone wants to pay a ridiculous amount of money just for one or two features. Even the @1k price tag is expensive for a server in my book.

This is really expensive for an OS, and it doesn't even come with awesome looking hardware.

Re:Ewww

[FaxeTheCat]

That is why they have the Essentials and Foundation. High end features stripped off and a far more affordable price. For a few people who need a file server, Windows Standard edition is overkill.

Re:Ewww

[man_of_mr_e]

That's just it. There is no functional difference now between Standard and Enterprise. They all have the exact same features. The only difference is how many virtual machines you can run. $800 for standard vs $4000 for enterprise.

If you don't want virtualization at all, then there's Essentials.

Re:Ewww

[kiriath]

Sure, but right now you can get server core and hyper-v standalone and run many virtual servers, but in the future if you want to stay current, at some point you're going to have to pay through the nose.

Re:Ewww

[LordLimecat]

If all they need is a file server and theyre happy with a workgroup, theres no reason to do with Windows Server at all-- there are many NASes out there that will fit the bill, or you could build your own and stick some distro on it (not like theres a shortage of SOHO fileserver distros out there).

Re:Ewww

[shutdown -p now]

Hyper-V Server is still free.

Re:Ewww

[kiriath]

Oh. Well... I shall enjoy my nice plate of crow. Thank you!

Bender.

[bmo]

> The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882.

Virtualization and incresed processor count is worth nearly $4,000?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

--
BMO

Re:Bender.

[FaxeTheCat]

That is up to you.
There is no increased CPU count. Both Standard and Datacenter support 2 CPUs per license.
With Datacenter you get unlimited (Windows) VMs, so if you run more than 10 Windows VMs on a (2 CPU) box, it is cheaper.
For less dense virtualization, use Standard licenses, as each give right to two VMs.

Re:Bender.

[zlives]

License is also CPU (socket) based not core.
so technically you can have 2x10 core (40 threads) to run lets say 5-40 vm's with the 4k license.
no functionality is disabled from standard to datacenter aside from VM licensing.

Re:Bender.

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtualization and incresed processor count is worth nearly $4,000?

Going rate.

Re:Bender.

[bmo]

>Comparing VAR pricing and support to bare license with no support

Fail.

--
BMO

Incorrect abstract.

[FaxeTheCat]

The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

Re:Incorrect abstract.

[alphatel]

The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2012#Editions

Re:Incorrect abstract.

[FaxeTheCat]

Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server

Not quite. The Datacenter license is also per processor pair. If you have 4 processors in the box, you need two licenses.

Re:Incorrect abstract.

[packetrat]

The article actually states this. The abstract above was wrong, not the article—you get licenses of 2 virtual instances of Windows Server per every Standard edition license. Also, there's a standalone version of Hyper-V Server that's a free download.

Re:Incorrect abstract.

[FaxeTheCat]

I actually state twice that the abstract is wrong, and then I quote the correct information from the article... I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes it is still possible to misunderstand...

Re:Incorrect abstract.

[zlives]

correct, both lics are for 2 sockets. it will pay off to go with a higher core/socket CPU

Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support.

[Anonymous Coward]

3 days of grubbing around in the registry and it still doesn't work.
On the linux servers, The same task was done with 3 iptables lines.
including the "service iptables save" .

  I was underwhelmed.

Pedestal vs. rackmount

[tepples]

Sure, a Mac Pro or a Mac mini + external Thunderbolt RAID may serve fine as a pedestal server. But I was under the impression that only Windows, Linux, and the like ran on rackmount hardware now that Apple has discontinued Xserve. Or has it already become common practice to put pairs of Mac mini computers into 19 inch racks?

Re:Shocking prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Mountain Lion Server include complete Active Directory, DNS, RADIUS, Terminal Server, Certificate Authority, Web Server and enterprise virtualization functionality?

At $40 I guess not.

The only reasons to use WS2012 over Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You are unable to grow a neckbeard.
2) You've had sex without having to pay for it.

Re:The only reasons to use WS2012 over Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I once had a neckbeard but had sex without having to pay? Can I still use 2008 at least?

Re:The only reasons to use WS2012 over Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an either/or proposition I believe. Also, if you think emacs or awk are a fun hobby/pastime, then there is no hope for you ever getting chummy with Winfroze2012.

The Mayans were right...

[Crudely_Indecent]

there will be a disaster in 2012

Re:The Mayans were right...

[Anonymous Coward]

flamebait? this is *funny*. It's a _joke_.

Re:The Mayans were right...

[Crudely_Indecent]

THANK YOU!

CALs?

[pebbert]

Does Datacenter come with an unlimited number of CALs to go with the server licences? Or, are those separate?

Re:CALs?

[FaxeTheCat]

CALs are not included.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

CALs are still separate like they've always been

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, and the two replies to you are lies. Datacenter gives you UNLIMITED guest OS CALs.

This site is pathetic. The amount of linux shilling that goes on here is sad.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if your DC (like our CC) only uses Centos workstations...what's in it (2012) for us...? {BFG}

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I think you bought the wrong license.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure there are no CALs included, it's all the base OS license..

Re:CALs?

[FaxeTheCat]

You are correct, and the two replies to you are lies. Datacenter gives you UNLIMITED guest OS CALs.

This site is pathetic. The amount of linux shilling that goes on here is sad.

Funny that somebody posting anonymously accuse others of lying without presenting any references to support the claim.

Well, here is the fact: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx#tab=2 "Windows Server Per-Processer licensing also requires a CAL"

The truth is never shilling (or penny, or pound...)

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to be confusing terms. A CAL is entirely separate from an OS license. Windows Datacenter includes unlimited Windows OS licenses for VM's running on the Datacenter server. CALs for connecting to servers are a whole different matter entirely.

Re:Shocking prices.

[Celarent Darii]

In this case however, you truly get what you pay for. Lion Server is nothing in comparison to Windows Server, though it might be enough for many people.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[Anonymous Coward]

(posting anonymous for obvious reasons)

It only took you three days. We were dealing with a screwy Microsoft Lync mobility issues whereby the iOS client just wouldn't work (but every other client under the sun worked). The only odd-ball thing about our setup was one of the four servers (at least four are required for any Lync deployment) was a Linux box acting as a reverse proxy. We opened up a ticket with Microsoft on April 30, 2012. The time spent with them since is a waste of time:

* We repeatedly requested the actual HTTP request/response data from the iphone's perspective, annotated with notes on how it differs from what the iphone expected. Every time we requested it, they provided us with the client's general iphone debug log (which was useless to us), even though we explained that it doesn't fulfill our request.

* We asked for details on what is expected of the Lync reverse proxy. They provided us with instructions on how to set up TMG. We replied that the provided information did not fulfill the request. Their response was a shrug and another link to the same instructions.

* We asked if there was anything specific to the iOS client that required ISA or TMG. They demurred on it, refused to research it, refused to acknowledge the bug for *four* months. I'm not exaggerating. It was August 31 when we inferred from the continued back and forth that the only way Microsoft can hope to grasp the problem is to make the reverse proxy an ISA server.

From this, I learned that Microsoft support really isn't much better than doing it yourself. They have no inside tricks, they have no way of getting a guru to weigh in on anything, and they hope that by sending you the same wrong information over and over they won't have to acknowledge faults in the product.

For my part, calling Microsoft support isn't an option any longer. It is a waste of time and money that could be better spent solving the problem myself.

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just picked up my copy and installed on my test machine and HOLY CRAP this is best version of Windows Server I've ever used. This basically solves the last problems that I needed Linux for so I can now finally replace all my Linux servers with something more usable and reliable. I'm looking to save about $1000 to $2000 per server per month by switching to Windows Server. Amazing.

Re:Wow.

[hobarrera]

It's POSIX-complaint? :|

Re:Wow.

[cbhacking]

Haha.

On a serious note, though, you actually can run POSIX apps on Server 2012. NT has, since its inception, included support for POSIX APIs and filesystem behavior. These days it's called SUA (Subsystem for UNIX Applications) and a smallish but fully functional operating environment for it, called Interix, is available for free. The installer will also let you enable various tweaks such as SetUID/SetGID behavior and filesystem case sensitivity, things you can't get with Cygwin or the like. It's implemented as an NT subsystem, same as Win32, so the speed is basically native as well. Interix comes with a working build toolchain, plus you can get a package manager for a repository of precompiled software and updates from http://suacommunity.com./

I'm not sure I'd advocate adopting it at this point if you haven't already - MS has been making moves toward discontinuing support for some years now, and it appears to no longer be in any of the client editions but Enterprise - but it exists, and it works. MS themselves used it to host Hotmail on Apache before they ported it to run on IIS. I use it (on client) both for various utilities that I prefer the POSIX versions of (git and ssh and such, plus sometimes there is no Win32 version) and for bash (my primary shell).

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's party like its 1993! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Well at least the kernel has been POSIX compliant since then. But for the full set of unix like tools, thats only been around for a decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

SUA is officially deprecated in Server 2012. Microsoft recommends (!) you use Cygwin instead.

Re:World's best server costs $0

[Anonymous Coward]

and the worlds best bank is my mattress

Now That 2012 is Out...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

Re:Now That 2012 is Out...

[FaxeTheCat]

It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

Why not be a little more bold and go to like 2009? So then you are only 3 years behind...

Re:Now That 2012 is Out...

[jader3rd]

It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

There is no Windows Server 2007.

Re:Now That 2012 is Out...

[Anonymous Coward]

In a few months from now, year 2013 makes Win2012 obsolete then.

Re:Now That 2012 is Out...

[DigiShaman]

Server 2007 doesn't exist. Server 2008 R2, sure. Stay away from 2008 (non R2) as that OS is built on the Vista platform. The Windows Update process is horribly broken for the Vista / 2008 lineage! Server 2008 R2 and SBS 2011 being Windows 7 based is far in away superior.

Re:Shocking prices.

[hobarrera]

I've no idea what "AD" exactly is, but the rest is. Apple also opensources much of their server software.

where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's?

[Joe_Dragon]

Sure, a Mac Pro or a Mac mini + external Thunderbolt RAID may serve fine as a pedestal server. But I was under the impression that only Windows, Linux, and the like ran on rackmount hardware now that Apple has discontinued Xserve. Or has it already become common practice to put pairs of Mac mini computers into 19 inch racks?

where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's?

the mini does not even have a easy to get to HDD (next to all other desktops) in it.

Re:where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's?

[serviscope_minor]

Mac minis make for terrible rackmount machines.

They don't even have ILM, so you actually have to go into the server room. Even cheap Supermicro servers (of which I am a big fan) have good ILM.

Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll be why the world runs on Windows servers and no-one would think of putting any critical service on Linux.

The Oracle world (big business, government) is definitely running on Linux instead of Windows. With the decline of Unix running on "big iron", with the exception of IBM's RS/6000 and AIX being the last holdout, everyone is moving their enterprise, mission critical apps to Linux. Especially with Oracle themselves releasing a tweaked version of RHEL, Linux is an "officially supported" platform that even satisfies the corporate PHBs and bean counters.

I make a pretty good living porting Oracle enterprise databases and apps to Linux. Just a couple weeks ago, we ported a Windows-based Oracle WebLogic middleware server from Windows to OEL Linux running on the very same piece of hardware, and got a tenfold boost in performance. With results like that, business loves Linux now.

Granted, only server-side things on Linux are welcome in the business world. The desktop will sadly *never* be adopted in any significant numbers in any enterprise. All because Windows and Active Directory rule that market segment.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure how you'd get a 10fold increase in performance over a Windows system, unless the WebLogic middleware was so god awfully inefficient for Windows, in which case thats the fault of whoever wrote it, not Windows. Linux is really useful for a lot of things, provided you have the expertise to set it up properly, and its goddamned stable in the face of the apocalypse too- its just really not for everything. The biggest issue Linux really faces is that its not a unified platform the way that Windows is. Simple things like updating a driver are orders of magnitude simpler and more reliable on Windows than Linux (albeit Linux is a lot better now than it was 5 years ago). That being said, its not like you couldn't take something like Ubuntu Linux, give it a skin similar to Windows and have it suit the vast majority of users needs pretty handily.

Like I said, the issue with Linux is and always will be unification. Until they can do that, they'll never compete in the average office or home arena.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[red crab]

I too always thought that this "unification" or interoperability within Microsoft products is their biggest advantage; until recently I tried to saddle a Sharepoint application with IIS, SQL server and Active Directory - It was as painful as OpenLDAP, MIT Kerberos and Samba integration I did a couple of years back.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

I make a pretty good living porting Oracle enterprise databases and apps to Linux. Just a couple weeks ago, we ported a Windows-based Oracle WebLogic middleware server from Windows to OEL Linux running on the very same piece of hardware, and got a tenfold boost in performance. With results like that, business loves Linux now.

I'm assuming you rewrote significant chunks, or threw crap out to get a 10x performance boost. With all the work done to port the system to Linux, why didnt you.. I dunno, analyze the performance issues in the old architecture? You make it seem like Linux is 10x faster, but it sounds more like the entire software solution was poorly implemented to begin with (or had a few key bottlenecks).

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[deek]

It's interesting that you use drivers as an example of how Windows is more unified than Linux. Linux drivers are, for the most part, supplied with the kernel, and are therefore highly unified with the system. Whereas with Windows, drivers are often the domain of the hardware manufacturer, and are therefore not as unified. In fact, it's quite often bugs in manufacturer drivers that necessitate driver updates in Windows. A problem that Linux does not have (barring Nvidia/ATI drivers).

Unification on the desktop, though, is probably what you're referring to. That is not a Linux problem per se. It's a Gnome problem, or KDE problem, or whatever other GUI system problem ... in which case it's the fault of whoever wrote or designed that system, not Linux.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure how you'd get a 10fold increase in performance over a Windows system, unless the WebLogic middleware was so god awfully inefficient for Windows, in which case thats the fault of whoever wrote it, not Windows.

Several factors converged to yield the tenfold performance boost. The Windows that was running on the original hardware was 32-bit Win 2003, so it could not make full use of all the RAM the box had in it (3.5GB of the installed 12GB). The Linux that we installed was 64-bit, able to make use of all the memory, and was Oracle's Enterprise Linux 6.3 which is a custom-tuned version of RHEL6.3.

WebLogic itself is indeed awfully inefficient on Windows, especially 32-bit Windows since it runs entirely under Java (insert funny dry-heave vomiting sound effects here). On Linux, we run JRockit instead of regular Java, since the JRockit jvm is a JIT compiler and runs the code significantly faster than the interpreted Java JVM, but at the expense of eating up a lot more memory, which is not a problem on 64-bit Linux on a box with plenty of RAM.

All together this adds up to the Linux 64-bit platform being the "Chuck Norris" option over Windows, especially over 32-bit Windows.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

And now you know the rest of the story.

So, you are full of shit. I understand a direct cycle-for-cycle apples-to-apples comparison is impossible, but this comparison isn't even in the ballpark.

My sports car just left that kid on his big wheel in the DUST. It's the "Chuck Norris" option over plastic children's transports, especially over 3 wheeled ones.

Re:Critical Apps on Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the decline of Unix running on "big iron", with the exception of IBM's RS/6000 and AIX being the last holdout,

Haven't heard of Solaris have we? Install base is quite a bit bigger than AIX, though both small compared to Linux.

Also your sarcasm detector is clearly broken. GP was exceedingly sarcastic.

Not quite generally available yet

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time of this comment, Microsoft server site (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/default.aspx) and dreamspark still have the RC version only.

Re:Shocking prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Active Directory is worth the price of Windows Server alone, and I say that as a Linux sysadmin who's implemented an OpenLDAP infrastructure (everything from AuthZ/AuthN to Puppet ENC backend to a single point of truth for Nagios). AD is miles away from anything any Open Source or Apple product has ever implemented.

Agressive Pricing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look like they may be trying to be a really compelling alternative to VMWare in the medium to large business space here. Pay 5000 per two sockets to use Server 2012 core as host OS for VMs, pay an extra 4000 per two sockets for the few System Center 2012 Datacenter boxes you need, evaluate you migration costs and savings from not having to have vSphere licenses.

Could be cost effective for some shops. Especially that it's pretty easy to figure out the costs with this new model compared to VMWare model.

Re:Shocking prices.

[DeathElk]

Active Directory - effectively yes, DNS - yes, RADIUS - yes, Terminal Server - yes, Certificate Authority - yes, Web Server - yes, enterprise virtualization functionality - neither does server 2012 unless you cough up an extra 4K

Oh good. Finally quality home OS to replace Win7.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me why MS is pushing me to pirate their 800$ server os by making their 50$ workstation os - which I'm perfectly willing to buy just like I own two win7 licenses - worthless and obsolete? It just makes no sense.

This is win2000 versus winME all over again... Have they learned nothing?

Grossly misleading/incorrect summary

[Jahoda]

(Although it should be noted article is misleading as well) Server 2012 Standard as well as Datacenter fully supports virtualization through Hyper-V. However, Standard edition is only licensed for running only two instances of _itself_ (actually more generous than the 1 physical, 1 virtual of current 2008 R2 STD licensing). Datacenter supports unlimited licenses. I am sorry, but I can only link directly to the PDF: http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/1/6/C1667DE0-EAC8-4DE7-BC47-E27DAE5B38D6/WS%202012%20Data%20Sheet_All%20Up%20Product%20Overview.pdf

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[LordLimecat]

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

According to this arstechnica article (2011), Microsoft had a 25% webserver market share (IIS) as of 2010, and 15% as of 2011. For standard servers, they accounted for 71% of all quarterly server shipments (original source, IDC). According to a survey in 2010 (the only one I could find on smtp market share, and was linked in Wikipedia), Exchange is the third most popular SMTP server (17%-- behind exim @ 34% and postfix @ 21%, and just ahead of sendmail).

You can call that many things, but "comparitively tiny" it isnt. Microsoft server is remarkably popular in SMB situations, and even in larger companies, and trying to write it off as irrelevant or whatever your angle was is silly.

Also silly is the comment about "code already there"-- EVERYONE does this, from RedHat to VMWare to Adobe any other company that sells multiple tiers of its software product.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[LordLimecat]

Wait, every single other client works, IOS doesnt, and your analysis is "Must be Microsoft's fault"? And you asked MS support for IOS details, and then wondered why they gave you the cold shoulder?

Seems to me youre better off bringing apple support in on this, or focusing on the "what is IOS doing wacky" rather than "what is IIS doing wacky".

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the world of "Support From Companies Much Larger Than Yours". I've experienced that from many of the big, big corps out there.

But from the little companies that actually need your business? Typically the support is outstanding. Then again, maybe it just seems that way in comparison to the shit I'm used to.

Well.......

[Anonymous Coward]

This year they put a 12 on the box........

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[jd2112]

YMMV

Personally with all of the Enterprise level support I've dealt with (e.g. IBM, EMC, HP, Dell, Oracle, CA, etc.) Microsoft is among the best.

(I'm talking Enterprise support, as in paying 7 figures/yr for licensing and support. Not calling an 800 number to India for someone to tell you to reboot your computer as you would get from a el-cheapo Wal-Mart laptop.)

Don't get me started on Oracle. Most of the time the problem I'm calling about is less painful than dealing with Oracle support.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[armanox]

Well, if it's like the OS X client, then it's written by Microsoft. I have an issue with MS Lync client on OS X where all video is being handled on the CPU instead of GPU. And Lync is the only program I have that issue with. Hmm...

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[MisterP]

I couldn't agree more. I've never experienced support like we get from MS. Just recently we had a 12GB .dmp file analyzed and in less than 36 hours they were able to tell us which shitty 3rd party driver was causing our boxes to BSOD. The vendor that shipped this driver (mentioned in the parent above) is so far, completely useless.

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[man_of_mr_e]

That ars technical article makes the same mistake so many others do. It confuses hostnames with servers. It assumes a 1:1 ratio of servers to host names, and that is nowhere near the case. It also confuses "apache" and "iis" with windows and non-windows. There are lots of apache servers running on Windows out there (mostly because they have apps that require a java application server like tomcat and apache is typically used on the front end of tomcat, although IIS can be used as well).

The fact is, Windows web servers tend to have fewer domain names per server than Apache because Windows is used more commonly in enterprise environments while Apache is used more commonly in web hosting environments.

What that all boils down to is that any technical "journalist" who quotes Netcraft's host survey as evidence of server installation numbers is a moron.

Re:Shocking prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

If for one single solitary moment you think the OpenLDAP setup in Mac OS X Server even comes close to touching the surface of Active Directory, I can only assume you've never actually used both of them. And there is a free version of Hyper-V server, you only need to cough up for the Enterprise version if you want unlimited licenses for Windows OS's to run on the VMs.

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[LordLimecat]

Seems to me the issue you mentioned would skew it in favor of apache (it would over-estimate the number of apache installs), but honestly I disagree-- I think its reasonable to look at "number of webdomain instances" rather than fussing about the number of underlying OSes, which have become largely irrelevant in these days of "virtualize everything".

Re:Shocking prices.

[FaxeTheCat]

enterprise virtualization functionality - neither does server 2012 unless you cough up an extra 4K

Wrong. Hyper-V is available in 3 packages:
- Free with little management
- Windows 2012 Standard (with a license for two VMs included)
- Windows 2012 Datacenter (which is Standard with a different license) which include unlimited virtualization rights.

Also, what hardware does Mountain Lion server support? Oh wait, since Apple retired Xserver, it is not supported on server class hardware... and to quote Apple: "OS X Server is perfect for a studio, business, hobbyist, or school. It’s so easy to set up, who needs an IT department?". Not really targeted at the enterprise, is it?

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[man_of_mr_e]

When trying to assess the market share of an OS in a given situation (such as web hosting), "fussing about the number of underlying OSes" is kind of the point, is it not?

Re:World's best server costs $0

[Anonymous Coward]

..and given Apache is not a server OS - this is relevant how?

Re:Shocking prices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Active Directory - effectively yes

You think that OpenLDAP is "effectively" the same as Active Directory? Not in this universe. OpenLDAP doesn't even get you 10% of the way to the functionality in AD.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[Alioth]

Pay-for-it Microsoft support is often pretty useless.

A while back in the pre-Vista days, we had to develop a replacement GINA for a retail till system. The GINA is the thing that handles logging in, locking the screen, authentication etc. and is loaded by winlogon.exe. There was a document available from Microsoft on how to write GINA DLLs, but it wasn't very detailed, and we needed to do much more complex things. The Microsoft document only really covered writing a GINA DLL that hooked onto the Microsoft one, not writing a completely new one. Writing a new GINA meant you had to do everything to get the user set up on logging in rather than relying on the MS one to do it for you.

There were still a few odd problems we were having with ours. Anticipating that we may need support on this, we got a MS support contract before embarking on the project to the tune of >$40,000 per year, i.e. the ultimate gold plated support contract. Now we had to use it in anger. We actually got to speak to actual Windows developers directly, on the phone. It did us absolutely no good at all.

It turns out that Microsoft internally had no more documentation than we did. Even though they had source code access, they just weren't much help - I suspect the original developer had probably left, and the source itself probably was more or less completely undocumented. We ended up having to reverse engineer it all ourselves the hard way - we could have saved the $40K.

Incidentally, I suspect the real reason why Microsoft was uncooperative with the EU over the Windows server networking protocol documentation wasn't due to malice. It was probably because they had no documentation and were busy reading the source code and trying to write the docs as quickly as they could.

Hassle-free VPN? IPv4 or IPv6?

[unixisc]

* Direct Access over IPv4. Think hassle-free VPN.

Is this a typo - did you mean to say 'Direct Access over IPv6'? That's the only way I can imagine VPN being hassle free. In IPv4, VPN is rarely hassle free b'cos the same set of private addresses tend to be used b/w networks, and resolving them is a major headache. With IPv6, if site-local addresses are used, it's easier to have hassle-free VPNs, since the chances of 2 networks having the same IP addresses is zero.

Given that from Windows Vista onwards, networking had been more IPv6 based than IPv4 based, I think that Server 2012 does direct access over IPv6. This is a welcome move, particularly in terms of accelarating IPv6 adaption.

Re:World's best server costs $0

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaha... you don't even know what a server is! no0B!

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[__aajwxe560]

Based on experience, I'd actually bet that Exchange number is higher. In most Exchange implementations I have seen of mid-to-large scale, the workload is distributed. In the survey case you linked, for inbound transit, it is completely sensible and in fact I would just about insist that the inbound transit be in something OTHER than exchange, such as Exim or Postfix, to both save money (why pay for yet another license to just pass mail along to inside resources?), as well as a security posture of managing risk with differentiating MX packages. If I carry that thought forward, a portion of those MX servers may well be in front of Exchange (or god forbid Notes or some other product).

Re:WHAT!? Indeed...

[X0563511]

and trying to write it off as irrelevant or whatever your angle was is silly.

I wasn't. "Comparatively" was intended to contrast their desktop numbers.

Also silly is the comment about "code already there"-- EVERYONE does this, from RedHat to VMWare to Adobe any other company that sells multiple tiers of its software product.

Doesn't make it right.

The cost of a #DEFINE

[ArturoBandini77]

How much will cost a
#IFDEF virtualization
?

Re:World's best server costs $0

[Anonymous Coward]

show me how you install apache without an operating system. Who's the n00b now, idiot?

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[Fr33z0r]

iOS 5 broke some SSL certs the iPhone previously handled without issue (notable among them x.509 certs with md5 hashes)

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the issue here.

Essentials is NOT SBS

[Rob Nance]

This is flat out wrong regarding SBS. The essentials version is the previous Foundation version, not SBS.

Whatever that moderator was smoking...

[Anonymous Coward]

He was comparing available hardware designed for Windows Server 2012 to available hardware designed for Mac OS X Mountain Lion Server. How is that off-topic?

Re:Shocking prices.

[randyleepublic]

Why is this so hard for open fans to grasp? And this is just one example of closed source functionality beating the crap out of anything available in open source. Here's another: Exchange/Outlook. It's so sad that open source is such weak sauce, AND that, as a result, closed source gets away with all sorts of crappy behavior because, sorry, no competition to spur them to greatness - to justify the bondage.