Windows Admins Need To Prepare For GUI-Less Server

[Arcath]

Every release of windows gets more like unix. One day they'll see sense and just do what apple did and clone BSD.

It wont be BSD, we will wake up one morning and Novell with have disappeared and Microsoft will be shifting Windows Suse

[Domino]

I'm all for exposing more functionality via CLI, but what's the point in adding it there and taking it away from the GUI? Why are we going backwards? Granted, the GUI is not the right solution for every problem and some tasks are inherently easier via CLI (e.g. creation of new year 7 accounts via script), but isn't the converse true as well?

I don't understand why limiting my options and forcing me to waste time memorising commands and relearn server configuration is a step forward. An OS should empower a user.

It'll be an install option, like server core - not being forced onto you.

It's reduced overhead that's a big benefit. When your VM density gets higher, the memory/processor allocation for just having a GUI on each machine becomes a sizeable chunk of resource. If you've machines that very rarely need actual intervention, then a gui-less install is a big benefit.

[Arcath]

Not a problem as long as they continue to produce admin MMC snapins so we can administer from the workstation. Omitting any kind of GUI management isn't 'adapting to the market', it's just lazy. I already resent the amount of functionality in Exchange 2010 for which the only exposed interface is Powershell. All it does is slow down basic configuration for no good reason.

There will have to be a "remote management pack" which installs all the MMC snapins onto a workstation, Microsoft can't really force the CLI on their users without giving some form of management GUI. I'm sure there are a lot of technicians out there who dread working in the CLI and don't have any experience doing it.

I have enough trouble with windows using "\" instead of "/" for folders, "dir" instead of "ls" and the number of times is see "'ifconfig' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file." is just stupid. I can certainly see me adding some aliases to the equivalent of .bashrc

[CyberNerd]

There will have to be a "remote management pack" which installs all the MMC snapins onto a workstation, Microsoft can't really force the CLI on their users without giving some form of management GUI. I'm sure there are a lot of technicians out there who dread working in the CLI and don't have any experience doing it.

This is basically how remote management will work on samba4 as an AD controller.


This seems a fairly sensible move. CLI is less overhead, less overhead = faster, cheaper to make and better security. CLI can be pretty powerful and for server admin I find it easier to use; For example, on CLI linux boxes it's usually easier to find out how to do something with 'man -k' than it is is with windows - endlessly searching through 'advanced -> advanced -> even more advanced' windows panels to find some obscure checkbox. Configuration files are usually better documented compared to GUI windows - although I somehow doubt MS will do the sensible thing and use text based config files, it would make backup/recovery easy. The only people who won't like it are the people who don't use CLI - as soon as they see how easy CLI stuff is then it will lower their perceptual barriers to unix.

[sonofsanta]

It'll be an install option, like server core - not being forced onto you.

It's reduced overhead that's a big benefit. When your VM density gets higher, the memory/processor allocation for just having a GUI on each machine becomes a sizeable chunk of resource. If you've machines that very rarely need actual intervention, then a gui-less install is a big benefit.

Granted, at the moment it's an install option - but the implication is, as stated in the linked article, that this is MS moving to CLI-only and trying to wean everyone off the GUI, as started with Exchange 2007.

I know I often rely on a GUI too much, and should be a better sysadmin and know my command prompt better than I do, but the fact is that for a number of jobs it is just slower, or more complicated, or harder to remember. Trying to force CLI on everyone almost smacks of elitism in a way - "well if you're not comfortable with CLI only, you're not a real sysadmin". I might be biased here, but to my mind there's more to this job than just technical skills with a server.

[CyberNerd]

I know I often rely on a GUI too much, and should be a better sysadmin and know my command prompt better than I do, but the fact is that for a number of jobs it is just slower, or more complicated, or harder to remember. Trying to force CLI on everyone almost smacks of elitism in a way - "well if you're not comfortable with CLI only, you're not a real sysadmin". I might be biased here, but to my mind there's more to this job than just technical skills with a server.

It's the same as any other technology - most 'real HP/Cisco/Juniper engineers won't use a GUI because they have less features, are slower and more difficult to backup.
Same goes for Unix admins. Why should MS be any different? - CLI shouldn't be slower, or more complicated.

[Michael]

There are pros and cons really to a GUIless server. Overall Windows Server Core has had less security updates, but not that many compared to the GUI versions.

I suspect Windows Server 8 will work with RSAT v2 (whatever it'll be called) so an admin can still run the GUI from a workstation. I think if I had to do everything via command lines, getting jobs completed are just going to take longer.

[TheLibrarian]

And finally Microsoft get back to where Novell Netware was originally...

[BKGarry]

I am just wondering, why will is still be called windows withough the GUI, should it not, in theory, be MS-DOS Version 8.x Server Edition at this rate.

[sidewinder]

I dont mind using the CLI, like others I have been forced to when we upgraded to Exchange 2010 and now I can memorise some commands it becomes second nature. But still it would be nice to be able to use the GUI if I just want to make a quick change, that frustrates me sometimes.

As mentioned, there are some things which really suit a CLI better, and some things which make more sense in a GUI, though of course providing a CLI equivalent for those is not a bad thing at all, as long as they dont abandon the GUI

[Geoff]

Well I think we've been given fair warning and we can experiment with it in advance with server core 2k8. So I don't really see why people are complaining. The benefits greatly outweigh the drawbacks when viewed objectively. I guess people don't like change.

[gshaw]

CLI on the server itself would be OK if the remote management tools cover everything we need to do.

Memorising huge lines of Powershell code to do mundane tasks that can be achieved with 2 mouse clicks doesn't seem to make the OS more efficient to me... giving choice is one thing but any massive shift from one extreme to the other isn't a good idea.

Reference: Exchange 2007... most of the GUI ended up being put back after complaints when it was mainly Powershell

[glennda]

Having worked with windows pre using linux working from the command line and text files is about 1000% easier. Whereas with windows its always trying to find that checkbox which makes everything hunky doory. If its in the text file correctly it should work. Also means resolving issues is easier - compare the windows forum on here with the unix one - the unix one you can paste your conf file somebody can check it - with windows its screenshots and what not which is just a pita!

[Earthling]

I am just wondering, why will is still be called windows withough the GUI, should it not, in theory, be MS-DOS Version 8.x Server Edition at this rate.

That was my first thought.

My second thought was that they can do what they like, cos I'll be retired by the time it comes out.

[pete]

So I don't really see why people are complaining. The benefits greatly outweigh the drawbacks when viewed objectively. I guess people don't like change.

You realise that Microsoft will do their usual, right?

1) Oops, we forgot to include searchable command history that persists across different CLI sessions.
2) ....and we also forgot to include command tab-complete using your path settings.
3) ....no, we didn't include a vim/nano-a-like (or re-issue edit for the 21st century.

And you'll be throwing things at them like everyone else.

I don't really care about the loss of the GUI. What I do care about is losing the GUI for a poor CLI.