Re: Don't forget the design
Let's deal with this first: "I was largely intentionally trolling in my original post".
That is not helpful and is actually destructive. Especially when you admit you don't even know the facts.
>>"Yes, I admit I didn't know that, but as has been pointed out already, that option produces a reduced interface, it doesn't remove the whole GUI system"
You were wrong on this. Several people pointed it out. One person claimed otherwise. You self-admittedly haven't any direct knowledge but you chose to believe the one person who agreed with you. That is called confirmation bias. They were wrong as well - they wrote that the entire graphics stack is still there. What you see if plug a monitor into a Server Core instance is a terminal window, there's not a menu, there's not a single GUI tool, it's a terminal window. I have motherboards with a BIOS from fifteen years ago with more of a GUI than that.
The other poster (who though they didn't know what they were talking about and were a single dissenting voice, you chose to believe over the rest of us), claimed that the entire graphics stack was still present. You could have easily checked this if you cared about actually being right, as opposed to defending your position. A very basic Server 2008 install running as Server Core will use about 180MB of memory footprint as opposed to 310MB for a version with the GUI configured with the exact same roles. Does that sound like it's doing nothing other than just not displaying a few menu options? It doesn't require all the same updates (only needing a subset as the GUI ones aren't needed). A base install of Server Core takes 1.6GB vs. 7.6GB for the GUI'd version - again, configured with exactly the same roles. Again, does that sound like it's nothing other than just turning off some GUI tools? It also runs fewer services so there's a small attack surface for malicious software / attacks.
So when a bunch of people with experience / expertise tell you something and one anonymous coward makes an unsupported statement otherwise, don't seize on their post, turn round to everyone else and effectively say 'ha! i wasn't wrong after all". Because you're reason for choosing to believe that poster over everyone else is transparant. Better, spend two minutes looking up some facts.
>>"Also, how do you do remote administration in that environment? Do you still have to remote desktop/vnc etc. ?"
I use the above questions to suggest that you really shouldn't be arguing about what Windows can and cannot do as you clearly have very little knowledge about this area. I'm happy to answer your questions, however.
If you think about it for a moment, btw. you'll realize that it cannot be VNC as VNC is simply a way of relaying the normal GUI / desktop to a remote machine and transmitting mouse / keyboard movements to it. Without a GUI in the first place, this could not be the way it works!
Typically you would use Server Manager, which is a remote server management tool for Windows Server and supercedes Remote Desktop. It doesn't work by giving you a remote desktop view, but instead provides tools for managing services / running scripts / configuring the remote machine. Well, multiple remote machines, actually. You'll have a sysadmin there running Server Manager, and they'll flick between different remote machines.
Note, command line / Powershell is a fundamental part of Windows Server. There's no part of the OS that isn't exposed to Powershell / configurable by it. So a lot of the time, if you have the knowledge or some available scripts, you can just use a command line to manage it.
>>"Firstly, coming from a VMS background, I agree that standard Unix permissions are not all that powerful. But do you want to compare that to win3.1? Just as relevant."
No I don't, because it's not just as relevant. You wrote about "the way unix (and unix like) systems are designed"and compared it to "Windows all or nothing design". I've pointed out that Windows isn't all or nothing and I compared it to UNIX permissions because that's what you compared it to.
Also, I never said that UNIX permissions are not powerful. They are. I only wrote that Windows was not an "all or nothing" system and that you appear to have no knowledge of this on Windows since before Vista.
>>"I haven't used Linux in over 15 years (apart from the Android tablets), but saying their ACL's are too complicated is as stupid as people saying that all Windows users do everything as Administrator, because the alternative is too complicated."
Nowhere did I say that ACLs on GNU/Linux are too complicated. Nor do I agree that they are. Whatever you're trying to argue against, it's nothing that I said. Indeed, very few people even actually use the ACLs on GNU/Linux. They stick with the traditional UNIX permissions system which are not access control lists.
Thirdly, the article was about bugs in things that already run with full privileges, so banging on about ACLs and file permissions is only vaguely related to the discussion in hand.
Again, you yourself brough this up. I just pointed out that you were wrong. Don't blame me for correcting you, or try to say something isn't relevant after you yourself were the one that raised it, just because you no longer find is supports your case.
>>"I'm pleased you know your limits...Of course I run all the production servers on tuned kernels"
Then I'm sorry to see that you don't know yours. You custom compile kernels on your machines introducing the possibility of hard to diagnose bugs, making it extremely difficult for someone to step into your role when needed and probably rendering any enterprise support agreements you have null and void. You say you haven't used GNU/Linux for 15 years so perhaps on the VMS world, things are different. But we're talking about Linux here so perhaps, like on Windows, you shouldn't pronounce authoritatively on this subject.
>>"all competent people do"
Way to insult all the skilled GNU/Linux sysadmins out there who don't custom compile the kernel on their production machines (and I work with a number of such people, btw).