FN-GM Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 I found this today, i thought some of us might want a read - Windows Admins Need To Prepare For GUI-Less Server - Slashdot
synaesthesia Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Interesting. That'll be Powershell stepping forwards then.
AngryTechnician Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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. 1
X-13 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 'I'm well aware that many Windows admins out there aren't looking forward to a GUI-less server operating system from Microsoft. ... I'm sure Microsoft has, too.They're proceeding anyway. We have two choices: adapt or die.'" ^ From Windows consultant and author Don Jones. Adapt or Die? [censored] that. I'll just switch to Linux/GNU. Problem?
DrCheese Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Adapt or Die? [censored] that. I'll just switch to Linux/GNU. Problem? Well yeah, considering that's going to be much worse when it comes to CLI only configuration. I already resent the amount of functionality in Exchange 2010 for which the only exposed interface is Powershell. Yup, it was even worse when 2007 first came out as that was the first release they built on top of powershell. It wasn't until SP1 did they bother readding some basic features back to the GUI
X-13 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Well yeah, considering that's going to be much worse when it comes to CLI only configuration. sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop Now it's Desktop + Server. Or... sudo apt-get install gnome-desktop-environment Server with GUI. I say again... Problem? Edited January 16, 2012 by X-13 added alternate method of summoning the GUI
zag Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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. Normally I would agree but having used live@edu extensively now I have never needed a GUI. Just a simple web interface for adding users and groups and powershell if you need it. Email systems really don't need to be complicated.
Domino Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 I say again... Problem? I think @DrCheese was actually agreeing with you..... ;-) Saying that windows would be much worse CLI only...
CyberNerd Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Every release of windows gets more like unix. One day they'll see sense and just do what apple did and clone BSD.
X-13 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I think @DrCheese was actually agreeing with you..... ;-) Saying that windows would be much worse CLI only... I've only had one coffee and half a cigarette... I've said it once, and I'll say it again; "I cannot brain today, I have teh dumb." Edited January 16, 2012 by X-13 "I've said it one"? Proof indeed, that I cannot brain. And that I do, infact, have teh dumb.
AngryTechnician Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Normally I would agree but having used live@edu extensively now I have never needed a GUI. Just a simple web interface for adding users and groups and powershell if you need it. Email systems really don't need to be complicated. And yet they are! Simple example: enabling MailTips. Should be a nothing more than a tickbox in the EMC, but instead you have to look up the PowerShell command. Granted, it's not a complicated command, but you still have to look it up when it could just be a sodding tickbox. For a more complicated example, I would say that even the simplest transport rule is a lot easier to set up in the EMC than using PowerShell. I don't even want to think about trying a complex transport rule on the command line.
sted Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 from what i read the gui is off by default but can still be enabled if you want it hopefully its better than virtual server bare metal i managed to get that working once and cant repeat it cant get mmc consoles to actually connect to do owt from a workstation
sonofsanta Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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.
sted Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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. i think the idea is to make the server do less so its less vunerable and needs less updating. it also means there is little point in using the console itself so its easier to manage from "your desk" rather than booting up rdp or actually going to the server room (though the amount of time it takes to install rsat on win7 for a few consoles is silly)
Arcath Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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.
Guest TheLibrarian Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 And finally Microsoft get back to where Novell Netware was originally...
BKGarry Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now