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