Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Server 2019 Will Feature Linux and Kubernetes Support (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the next-up dept.

Microsoft announced this week that it will launch the next major release of Windows Server later this year with better support for hybrid workloads, Linux workloads, and hyper-converged infrastructure. From a report: This release will succeed Windows Server 2016, which was made generally available in October 2016. While Microsoft moved to twice-yearly updates for Windows Server starting last year, the company bundles those changes into a long-term servicing channel once every two or three years for administrators who prefer less frequent releases. Those companies that haven't moved over to the semi-annual channel will get their first taste of Windows Server's Linux and Kubernetes support, which are currently in beta.

56 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Linux is Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing Windows!

  2. Re:That's cool by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    If you are going with Windows Server, chances are you need Windows Server as the primary OS, because it is primary running a Windows Service (Say SQL Server for Application compatibility). But there are some things you may need Linux for and would prefer the Linux port over the windows port, say some sort of LAMP stack... Just as a secondary low resource web front end. So why bother setting up two computers when one will be good enough.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Re:That's cool by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    If you are going with Windows Server, chances are you need Windows Server as the primary OS, because it is primary running a Windows Service (Say SQL Server for Application compatibility). But there are some things you may need Linux for and would prefer the Linux port over the windows port, say some sort of LAMP stack... Just as a secondary low resource web front end. So why bother setting up two computers when one will be good enough.

    If only there was some way to run multiple operating systems on the same hardware. /s

  4. I don't get it. by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the hell would I want this for?

    All my Windows servers -- going back to still-running Windows/NT -- are hosted in a Linux-based hypervisor running as VMs. The older ones used to live on bare-metal and moved to a VM and the new ones have been VMs from the start.

    So if I wanted something that Linux provides that Windows does not why wouldn't I just instantiate another Linux VM? All my LAMP, Glassfish, Wikis, mail servers, etc etc are VMs hosted on Ubuntu LTS.

    (These days I never put a publicly routable IP address on a hypervisor environment.)

    I just don't get why what Microsoft is doing would be useful, other than it sounds awesome to people who don't know what they are doing.

    1. Re:I don't get it. by Deathlizard · · Score: 2

      I would assume it's more for Hyper-V environments where you're already running Windows Server as the host.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
    2. Re:I don't get it. by llamalad · · Score: 2

      Embrace, extend, extinguish.

      Extinguish might be hard, but they've almost certainly got actual teams of smart people whose only job is to figure that out.

      At the very least they'll be able to sow discord and fragment communities.

    3. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who don't know what they're doing, yet you maintain LAMP servers and Wikis for a living?

      Stick to junior league kid, and leave the discussions about this sort of thing to the professionals.

    4. Re:I don't get it. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I would assume that MS is trying to get more installs by showing some flexibility in what it can do on the server side. For example Server 2016 requires you to install a GUI if you want one; Windows Server is more driven by command line than before, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:I don't get it. by chispito · · Score: 5, Informative

      What the hell would I want this for?

      You wouldn't. Others will.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:I don't get it. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Troll

      You wouldn't. But Microsoft wants you to want it. Because this way they can continue the annexation of Linux, which is part of their overall plan to become the only OS manufacturer in the world. Which is precisely why you and everyone else needs to turn their nose up at this and continue to use standalone Linux.

    7. Re:I don't get it. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      B/c if they don't, Windows become another VM or App.
      b/c they want to go full-FB and sell the telemetry data.

      Either way, I see MS coming out with MS-Linux within 10 years

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    8. Re:I don't get it. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      So if I'm reading this correctly - because you don't need this - no one will.

  5. what about uses that RDP / remote apps for windows by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    what about uses that RDP / remote apps for windows?

  6. Re:windows vs linux servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Honestly, I can't imagine running a server in 2018 that's not Windows. I did this fine on Windows ten years ago, yet there's been so much advancement since then.

  7. Re:windows vs linux servers by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine running a server, who manages at that level? Give me just let me host my containers or hell manage the container for me and just run my code. No reason to waste my time doing silly things like patching host operating systems.

  8. Please stop! by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having just recently installed a windows server for the first time for many years due to some crap software requiring MS SQL, I could never imagine how bad it is, the process management, the resource hogging, man why!!! Why!!!

    1. Re:Please stop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having just recently installed a windows server for the first time for many years due to some crap software requiring MS SQL, I could never imagine how bad it is, the process management, the resource hogging, man why!!! Why!!!

      SQL Server is available for Linux. You don't have to use windows just for that.

    2. Re:Please stop! by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      Silly young man, you never worked with enterprise software did you? Nor just you need to stick with the MS flavour of it, you often need to stick to a specific version of it.

  9. Windows server supporting Linux ... by Murdoch5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just run Linux, the better OS, in the first place and when absolutely required (although rarely needed), run Windows Server in a VM?

    1. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because it's M$ dream to have Linux thought of as a "Windows app" instead of an alternative (read: competing) operating system. Nothing better for them to use as leverage as being the gatekeeper for what is considered by most to be "Linux". "Does it work under M$/Linux? No? Then it's not getting installed."

      Also, when M$ finally shuts the door for users on Secure Boot, there will be less of an uproar because the users won't believe that they've lost anything. "You can still run it. Look I'm running the app right now."

    2. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your argument depends on linux being the "better" os, which is not a true argument.

    3. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      See my other comment: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    4. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by williamyf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why not just run Linux, the better OS, in the first place and when absolutely required (although rarely needed), run Windows Server in a VM?

      Cloud computing for telco (OpenStack) technical trainer here:

      A few reasosn why this makes sense:

      Running Linux on top of Windows/Server Hyper-V

      There are shops which are "Mostly windows" for historical reasons. For them is cheaper to run windows through and thorough, and only when "absolutely required, but rarely needed" run linux in a VM. The alternative is to retrain the workforce, and that has costs measures in $, time and resistance to change.

      If your organization has the proper licensing scheme, Hyper-V is free (as in beer), while the "Certified Kosher/Halal Linux" virtualization solutions (Xen and KVM) cost a pretty penny, and the market leader solution (VMWare) cost more Still. So, even if your company is a Mostly linux shop, if you have the propper licensing, it may be less expensive to use Hyper-V, than the linux solutions available.

      In some environments (in particular, regulated environments), linux is costly (windows is costly too, of course), because you can only use the "Propper Linuxes", RedHat, Suse, and to a lesser extent Ubuntu and Debian. Other things will lack support from the hardware maker propper certification (think PCI, not the bus/slot, the certification). So, is not like you can go and use a linux OS/virtualization solution based on a Gentoo roll your own distro + Bochs + QEMU. So, the cost advantage of linux becomes less of a draw.

      In particular, if you want (or worse, are forced by internal/external regulation to) have support, red hat forces you to buy support for every single instance of redhat running in your environment, and not for select instances only...

      Running Linux apps inside Windows:

      In windows heavy shops, for administrators that come from an unix background, or can not grasp the power of Powershell, this is a boon.

      If an app you want to run (in the broad sense, from a propper ELF executable, to a measly shell script) is only available in windows, cool, you can go for it without firing a Linux VM

      Running Dockers containers in Windows:

      As docker gains traction, more apps will be developed as a set of containers. Microsot would rather you run those apps on their OS, especially for customers who are Windows Heavy, than cede the market, or try to develop their own.

      Hybrid Cloud:
      If you want to make Hybrid Cloud, whith seamless movement of workloads from private to public and back, the pecking order is Azure, then Openstack, and VMware a distant third.

      These are a few of the reasons why this makes sense, I am certain many in Slashdot can think of others.

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    5. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what a millennial is?
      I am a millennial according to the definition.
      Started programming on the C64 when I was young and later switched over to Amiga.
      It wasn't until my late teens that I got to try internet. Smartphones weren't a thing until I was an adult.

      What you are thinking of is probably Generation Z, but that is not an expression you will hear from the people who does your thinking for you.

    6. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not just run Linux

      Because performance of IT systems sucks when your admin has to print out and fax documents across the world because he can't figure out why chmod 777 exchangeserver.exe didn't work.

    7. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by williamyf · · Score: 1

      because you can only use the "Propper Linuxes", RedHat, Suse, and to a lesser extent Ubuntu and Debian. Other things will lack support from the hardware maker propper certification (think PCI, not the bus/slot, the certification)

      that's mostly a myth; we build and support certified systems running free-as-in-beer linux (mostly centos, some ubuntu): pci, hipaa, fedramp, and dod/ic (from unclassified to above top secret)

      because it's open source, we serve as the "vendor" for purposes of support

      "Q: How can I get support for OSS that already exists?
      You can support OSS either through a commercial organization, or you can self-support OSS; in either case, you can use community support as an aid." http://dodcio.defense.gov/Open...

      Great for the USoA. And good to know (no sarcasm here).

      But, what's the situation in Europe? Japan?

      What about the four other eyes of the five eyes? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? UK?

      Or in LatAm, where I do the Training (and, just to remind you, just South America has 11 countries, central america and the Caribean have many more, some really tinny, like Belize or Dominica (not to be confused with the dominican republic)).

      What about EMEA? Or south East Asia?

      I can personaly vouch for what I said in the cases of Spain (where I did my MBA), Mexico, Brazil (where I did training), and Colombia and Venezuela (where I lived and worked). And friends and contacts tell me is similar for other countries in LatAm as well.

      And even if Govt/Industry regulations allow it, you still have to face the internal policy of each company. The first customer facing linux project for a Telco in Venezuela was headed by yours truly in 2001, and the politics were quite nasty to get it going...

      I remember at that time, HP made a big deal about supporting debian, but only if it was HP's Debian, on top of HP hardware, installed by HP personnel... We in the FOSS world have come a long way since then, but still have a long way to go... (from the get go RedHat was required in my project, by the way)

      Trust me dude. Is hard to get FOSS Support accepted outside of the BigUns (RedHat/Suse/Oracle and to a lesser exent Ubuntu and Debian for linux, other companies for other technologies). It will be either regulation making it difficult, or internal procedures of the companies making it difficult.

      Finally, and I say this in all seriousness, and without sarcasm at all: If your company could set shop in our countries, and lobby to change those regulations and perceptions, would be wonderfull...

      But for the time being, it is as it is...

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    8. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Have you gone through an actual federal audit yet? I'm not doubting your statements, just curious. My current job revolves around 800-171 compliance, the way my company works is "if it doesn't have a STIG, it doesn't run inside our enclave" when it comes to anything server-based. I know there is a STIG for RHEL, I have yet to look over it (because I have 50+ others to work on). I'm pretty new to this particular workplace, most of my time recently has been fighting with Windows 10, parsing up STIGs to give to other departments, and working on PowerShell scripts to automate auditing.

    9. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      LMAO That's awesome!

    10. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      That's interesting!

    11. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Fair response.

    12. Re:Windows server supporting Linux ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Glad I could please on this wonderful Friday :)

  10. well then give me linux bonding and bridgeing then by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    well then give me linux bonding and bridgeing then

  11. What's better for Linux/Kubernetes workloads is... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Linux.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  12. Re:windows vs linux servers by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

    I don't really care about the OS these days, I use what is best for the workload at hand. Having the option of Linux can't hurt, especially how Kubernates is a "make or break" product in a lot of newer shops.

    Of course, a lot of shops are best using Linux, and shoehorning Windows only adds another layer. However, there are shops that have a significant Windows investment, in both licenses and skills, where having Linux on Windows may be their best solution.

    There are some things which only Windows can do, and are needed. AD for example. However, there are some applications which only run on Linux (or UNIXes like macOS) and are nice to have, like Borg Backup, which does a great job for deduplicating and encrypting content.

  13. Re:That's cool by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Funny

    What you want is to run your Windows Server on a VM and use that to emulate Linux and then launch containers inside the emulated Linux. Naturally, inside the containers you run your software inside virtual machine models such as the JVM. If you don't have at least four layers of 'virtual' between you and your hardware you're not trying hard enough.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  14. Re:windows vs linux servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    If M$ does it, it must be bad! Therefore, no one should use Linux servers.

  15. WTF is a servicing channel? by jtara · · Score: 1

    Can somebody send some English teachers up to Redmond?

    1. Re:WTF is a servicing channel? by darkain · · Score: 1

      Service Channels are just the difference between current main line branches vs LTS branches. Thats it. If you want an LTS release, you use that "channel"/"branch", if you want the most latest and greatest, you pick that "channel"/"branch" instead.

  16. Whew! Still supports netbeui by Drunkulus · · Score: 1

    This Linux shell is great and all but we still need this thing to run our Quake server.

  17. Re:windows vs linux servers by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Where do you host your containers?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  18. no way that dell / hp /others will lockout esxi / by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    no way that dell / hp / others will lockout esxi / linux as the base os. Hell the new core licensing rules make it so that more people don't want to run windows at all.

  19. Re: That's cool by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solaris zones? Kids! IBM mainframes has an os called VM in the late 70s - guess what VM stood for?

    --
    Ken
  20. Re:windows vs linux servers by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    AWS fargate, lambda (if I'm not even interested in managing the container), etc.

  21. Re: That's cool by darkain · · Score: 1

    Vaporware Machine?

  22. Re:windows vs linux servers by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Okay, so, the answer to my question is really "other peoples' servers", which makes the answer to your question "the people who run the servers you host your containers on."

    Did you honestly think all of that happened without servers?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  23. Re: That's cool by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    Solaris zones? Kids! IBM mainframes has an os called VM in the late 70s - guess what VM stood for?

    Vi iMproved? Kids these days don't even know that emacs is an OS as well;)

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  24. Re:windows vs linux servers by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    I get that, my point is given the option (unless the poster here works for a cloud provider) why the hell would you bother running and managing your own servers? Next you will tell me that serverless apps still have servers behind it.

  25. Re:windows vs linux servers by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, let me think...

    A) Applications do exist that require performance you can only get from bare metal

    B) Fields do exist that require that you don't put certain data in the hands of a 3rd party (think medical and legal, just for starters)

    C) It's not uncommon for a business to wish to continue operations when their internet connection is down.

    D) As your container host provider, I can see all of your dirty little secrets. That new service you're trying to bring to market with a team of 5? The one that's 50% done? The one you've handed me all of the current source code to? I've got a team of 50 working on getting it to market a year ahead of you and a big enough war chest to bankrupt you if you sue. Aren't you glad you used containers?

    Need I continue?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  26. Re:windows vs linux servers by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Oh and yes, since you really wanted me to say it... Serverless app do still have servers behind them.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  27. Re:windows vs linux servers by PPH · · Score: 1

    Did you honestly think all of that happened without servers?

    Its containers all the way down.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Re:windows vs linux servers by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    If that is the case then you should start to use Visual Source Safe.

  29. Re: In before... by Brockmire · · Score: 2

    That's a valid exit strategy for Microsoft if they decided the OS business wasn't profitable in the future.

  30. Re: The naming needs more consistency by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Holy shit, this is the weakest change request, ever. Server and Desktop versions are targeted to different people. If you can't track which desktop edition is based on server version, and googling is too hard for you, you shouldn't be in IT, at all.

  31. Re:well then give me linux bonding and bridgeing t by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    powershell? I like to do my network config in ifcfg files none of the NetworkManager BS

  32. Re:windows vs linux servers by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Then they're lots of little servers.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  33. Can we get ceph storage support in windows server? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Can we get ceph storage support in windows server?