Hans-Christian Andersen
hans.andersen at phulse.com
Mon Mar 4 19:08:30 CST 2013
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_6AC4/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.aspx > > 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 >