"Sounds like you have not learned the difference yet. Hyper-V server is not ain any way crippled. It's fully functional with all the Hyper-V features but with lower resource requirements and reduced attack surface."
All the Hyper-V features, sure. But not the other features that make Windows Server such a great operating system, nor with a usable GUI. But hey, if you focus your thoughts narrowly enough you can prove any point, eh?
"Only if you are incompetent. We run nearly all our Windows Servers and Hyper-V servers without a GUI, unless required for a specific third party application. As everyone should do. Hence why no GUI is the default when you install Windows Server."
So the overwhelming majority of humans who are visually oriented are "incompetent"? Even those who can manage things via command line but prefer easier, simpler, faster and more intuitive interfaces? They're "incompetent" because they don't share your mutation that allows you to bypass billions of years of visual reference response wiring?
Jibbers fucking Crabst. you're arrogant.
"All the management tools can be run remotely from your desktop, if you can't cope with Powershell. The tools are identical to if you had a GUI on the server."
Again, you completely ignore what I actually wrote. These tools require you to use an operating system that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the world, and they are significantly inferior to the tools offered by other hypervisors.
All you are doing here is spouting Microsoft marketing propaganda. Again. Why do you feel the need to do this? Don't you have friends? A family? Or even an overused prono mag that occupies your attention such that you aren't constantly online haranguing people with Microsoft's broken vision for solving problems of 5 years ago?
Microsoft isn't the solution to all problems. Their approach to management interfaces, UIs, or even how they treat their customers, partners and staff sure as hell aren't great. They are one possible solution to today's problems, with a passable hypervisor and shitty management tools. They also have a fetish for subscription licensing and getting my data into an insecure country run by madmen.
And even if they somehow, magically, were to become the ultimate solution to all ills, your hostile and arrogant approach to "selling" people on the benefits of your tribal brand is completely fucking cracked. At this point, I wouldn't care if Microsoft handed out unicorns and bags of cash with every copy of Hyper-V, I wouldn't use the goddamned thing because it would mean that my user community was people like you!
We get it. You really love Microsoft. Congratulations. Do you want a statue or something? The rest of us aren't fucking robots,ingesting integrals and pissing derivatives. We don't want to sit in a dark room and string together scripts to run our infrastructure. We don't even consider "running infrastructure" to be a full time job.
The rest of the world has too many important things to do to waste our time becoming "specialists" in some bit of infrastructure. We have to go forth and make the company money by doing things like working out how to integrate and automate that infrastructure so that we can make more money with less manpower, or make more widgets with fewer mistakes.
To do that, we rely on intuitive user interfaces. Things that allow us to not touch some element of the infrastructure for months - even years - but figure it out when needed in a matter of seconds. No memorizing commands. No scripts in a folder buried in some hierarchy. No debugging piles of linked PowerShell.
We have money to make, things to do, lives to live. And we don't want to spend it dicking around setting up 8 fucking servers just to get a basic environment working, or "retraining" every 18 months to learn another college semester's worth of commands just to manage something that should have been easily handled by the goddamned developers in their UI to start with.
All the other major companies playing this game seem able to crank out usable interfaces. Even the bloody open source projects. But Microsoft can't. And they don't care enough to even try. I mean hell, Microsoft have even killed Technet because they give zero fucks about hobbiests, junior admins or those who don't have enterprise resources backing their expensive and perpetual ongoing training.
You advocate a world where systems administration is a massively specialized and specialist-focused endeavor and you champion the vendor that still perpetuates this myth. Everyone else wants you to be able to learn the basics and then adapt smoothly as new technologies come out.
If for no other reason than sheer self preservation it makes sense not to engage with Microsoft. Because Microsoft wants to make such specialists that we all know more and more about less and less until we all know absolutely everything there is about absolutely nothing.
And when our area of expertise is rolled into their cloud service and no longer available locally? Too bad, so sad. Reskill. At enormous cost in time and money.
Why, why, why, WHY would anyone choose that? Why would they choose this archaic approach to things when superior alternatives exist? Microsoft isn't faster. It's not more efficient. It's not "better" in any objective sense.
Microsoft is merely one competitor amongst many, and if they want to win the hearts, minds and wallets of the many then they have to offer a better experience - in the short term and the long term - than their competitors.
They have flat out fucking failed at this for some time, an nowhere is that more clear than with hypervisors and their management tools.
Maybe if you are ever able to comprehend the above you'll understand why so very many have left Microsoft's orbit, and why oh so very many are never going back.