[AccessD] New Approach

Hans-Christian Andersen hans.andersen at phulse.com
Mon Mar 4 21:21:40 CST 2013


- A graphical login screen: check
- Multiple multitasking windows that overlay each other: check
- Windows that can be moved around the screen and resized: check
- Windows that have a fancy themed decorator around it: check
- Mouse interface integration: check
Etc etc

Seems to me like it's a GUI. It is a crude and limited one, but it is a "graphical" user interface. Microsoft probably left in the whole graphical subsystem of Windows there fully intact.

- Hans


On 2013-03-04, at 6:38 PM, "William Benson \(VBACreations.Com\)" <vbacreations at gmail.com> wrote:

> Call that GUI ha ha ha.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Hans-Christian
> Andersen
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:08 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] New Approach
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
>> As for Microsoft not having servers with out a GUI, there is their 
>> latest offers,
> a Hyper-V Server 2012. It is free to download and run but it is totally
> command prompt driven. I understand there is a couple of packages out there,
> if needing some GUI but they are basic in the extreme.
> 
> That's cool. This is just like what VMWare has been doing for quite a while.
> But I would just like to point out 2 things:
> 
> First of all, it doesn't appear that Hyper-V Server 2012 is completely
> GUI-less. It simply removes as much GUI as possible, but it is still there,
> as you can see in this screenshot:
> http://msinetpub.vo.llnwd.net/d1/matthester/blog/images/Hyper-V-ServerMatt_6
> AC4/sconfig.png
> 
> Secondly, Hyper-V Server 2012 is not really a normal server OS. It's a
> virtualisation server OS. It's purpose is simply to host virtual machines on
> it that contain another OS. You can't use it for much else. So, if you are
> trying to host a Windows server, you are inevitably going to have to install
> a server with a GUI somewhere... except this time, you are doing it on top
> of a virtualisation platform, which makes it even more resource intensive
> than simply installing a server OS natively to host machine (or, to the bare
> metal, as they say).
> 
> There are plenty of good reasons for doing this (for instance, you want
> multiple servers without having to pay for extra hardware), but it doesn't
> change the status quo regarding Windows Servers being GUI-driven.
> 
>> I think most of us old guys grew up with the command prompt, with 
>> various minis,
> main-frames, UNIX and even DOS and would have little problem going back but
> only if demanded as we have become a little gentrified. You have to
> completely blame Apple for starting the whole GUI trend. ;-)
> 
> For ordinary usage of a computer, GUI's are far superiour to a command-line
> driven experience. I doubt very many people will dispute that. I'm speaking
> more about servers, which is not meant to be interfaced directly by a human
> (other than for administration by an expert).
> 
>> "... though there are very little (no) differences other than cosmetic 
>> between
> desktop and server. They are both fully multi-user and use the same kernel.
> "
> 
> This appears to be a recent change in Ubuntu 12.04 and above. I'm still
> running 11.04 and there are many differences besides the lack of a GUI. I
> wonder why Canonical decided to go in this direction.
> 
> 
> - Hans
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Hans-Christian Andersen
> **Web Application Developer, Vancouver, Canada*
> 
> 
> E: hans at phulse.com
> T: +44 (0)20 7193 7841
> L: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/andersenhc
> http://www.nokenode.com/
> 
> *Unique Gifts, Collectables, Artwork*
> *Come one, come all to.... *www.corinnajasmine.com
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> On 4 March 2013 16:08, Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Hans:
>> 
>> I think I did cover that point.
>> 
>> "... though there are very little (no) differences other than cosmetic 
>> between desktop and server. They are both fully multi-user and use the 
>> same kernel. "
>> 
>> I think that having no GUI is ultimate cosmetic. ;-) According to the 
>> Ubuntu site, their server and desktop have been completely the same 
>> (other than the
>> GUI) and there have only been a few modest difference starting as of 
>> the
>> 12.04 version.
>> 
>> As for Microsoft not having servers with out a GUI, there is their 
>> latest offers, a Hyper-V Server 2012. It is free to download and run 
>> but it is totally command prompt driven. I understand there is a 
>> couple of packages out there, if needing some GUI but they are basic in
> the extreme.
>> 
>> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/hyper-v-server/default.asp
>> x
>> 
>> A friend is running his servers with the package and he is very 
>> pleased with it. It runs everything as virtual drives. It is not as 
>> fast as Linux but a lot faster than the regular MS Server 2012 and it 
>> is supposed to scale a lot easier and has full support for the Cloud 
>> as well as Samba server and Linux integration. (Why the GUI should 
>> affect the basic functionality I have no idea but that is what I am 
>> being told).
>> 
>> As a point of interest the DBA website is running off such a server.
>> 
>> I think most of us old guys grew up with the command prompt, with 
>> various minis, main-frames, UNIX and even DOS and would have little 
>> problem going back but only if demanded as we have become a little 
>> gentrified. You have to completely blame Apple for starting the whole 
>> GUI trend. ;-)
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of 
>> Hans-Christian Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:30 PM
>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] New Approach
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> Just to add to your comment about Ubuntu, there are some slight 
>> differences between desktop and server. The most obvious one is thar 
>> Ubuntu server does not install with a GUI by default and this is a 
>> good thing. In my opinion and that of many in the industry, a GUI is a 
>> waste of system resources, as Linux can be administrated perfectly 
>> fine via the command line (bash and
>> ssh) and you have less software installed this less of a surface for 
>> security vulnerabilities. For those reasons and others, I'd say it is 
>> the superior choice for a server administrator, but that is sometimes 
>> a hard sell for someone more familiar with using Microsoft server 
>> operating systems, so you can still install a GUI if that is your
> preference.
>> 
>> Another difference is that the kernel for Ubuntu server is a little 
>> different. It's been optimised and tweaked more for a server 
>> environment and better performance in that respect. Which is nice.
>> 
>> The last notable difference is also the software packages available 
>> and the package repositories. They are not quite the same as the 
>> server version is geared more for stable software releases, while 
>> desktop is a bit more bleeding edge. Ubuntu also provides you with 
>> some services that you don't really get on the desktop version, such 
>> as Landscape, other cloud services and etc.
>> 
>> I run an Ubuntu server (still on 11.04 though, need to upgrade one of 
>> these days), but my experience so far in the last 2 or so years has 
>> been great. I recommend it if you want a good server OS and the other 
>> proper Linux server distros like CentOS and Debian are a bit intimidating.
>> 
>> 
>> - Hans
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> AccessD mailing list
>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>> 
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



More information about the AccessD mailing list