back to article Reversible head transplants coming back to Windows Server 2016

Microsoft says it might bring back Windows Server 2012's option to run with or without a GUI. Windows Server 2008 and 2012 offered the chance to install a “Core” version of Windows Server shorn of the Windows desktop's graphical user interface. Server 2008 dropped users straight into a command line. Server 2012 offered a a …

  1. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Trollface

    Those who do not understand Unix...

    They should just stick the Windows 10 bash shell on there before starting the real job of replacing the kernel.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Those who do not understand Unix...

      "They should just stick the Windows 10 bash shell on there"

      It already has Powershell that's way more modern, powerful, flexible and secure than Bash.

      "before starting the real job of replacing the kernel."

      Well again, it's already a modern hybrid micro-kernel approach - that has several advantages over say legacy monolithic approaches...

      1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: Those who do not understand Unix...

        Indeed, if people don't love Powershell, they can't have tried it. Several times I've had tasks that seem like a complete PITA, and turn out to be a fairly simple Powershell script.

        For example, our AD needs a bit of a tidy up after consolidating some old domains, Powershell to the rescue! The fact it's object oriented so I can pick out relevant fields easily, it handles data well, I'm only writing code to solve my problem, I'm not writing code to parse data.

  2. LDS Silver badge

    Simple solution: stick to the Windows 2008R2 GUI.

    No one really wants the Windows 10 desktop experience on a server (nor a desktop, to be sincere).

  3. nematoad Silver badge
    Windows

    What target?

    I just wonder who the changes were aimed at.

    IT pros used to a command line or the "local experts" raised on a GUI and incapable of using anything else?

    It does seem as if MS have gone a bit too far with point and click and have thrown the baby out with the bath water in the quest for "consistency".

    There is such a thing as using the right tool for the job.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: What target?

      >There is such a thing as using the right tool for the job.

      Which given the increasing emphasis on cloud and virtual servers, would, in the case of MS, be System Center...

      Otherwise, use the command-line - a bit like Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 free.

  4. thondwe

    X-Windows Anyone?

    MS should take a leaf out of the X-Windows Book? Tool's Gui runs on management box, actual tools run on remote box...

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: X-Windows Anyone?

      You probably don't know - but you could remotely administer a Windows server installing the administrative tools locally, and connect via RPC to the server. And the RPC interface, albeit more complex, was far better than the new one using PowerShell - that's because you have a real API to control the server applications, and not a bunch of scripts and command line I/O, and simplistic error handling. It is also much faster. Administering Windows servers became a pain in the ass since everything goes to PowerShell and takes ages to accomplish anything. Yes, much more alike Linux...

      RPC also allows for more granular security, although being often based on DCOM may open its own risks if the server was not properly set up (i.e. separate management interface or VPN).

  5. Mr Dogshit

    Does anyone actually use Server Core?

    Neither my colleagues nor I have ever seen it used in the real world.

    1. Flakk

      Re: Does anyone actually use Server Core?

      Sure. Server Core makes a great DNS server for those wishing to de-couple that function from their Domain Controllers. Nano Server is supposed to be even better, but I haven't poked at it yet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does anyone actually use Server Core?

        Yes, it's also a great secondary Domain Controller. Low hardware requirements, lower attack surface.. it just works.

        I have 2 DCs at a small company - one has full fat Server 2016 cause you never know when you may need a tool that doesn't install on Core, but the Core DC has been running smoothly for months and months with nary an issue. I like it.

        Anon cause I don't want to post company deets

    2. Dave Hilling

      Re: Does anyone actually use Server Core?

      Yes, anymore questions...lol, we used it in our DMZ, used it for some DCs, etc.

  6. JediMindTrick

    I, still to this day, will never understand why they hide file extensions by default on their FREAKING SERVER OPERATING SYSTEM. It will forever baffle me.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me fix that for you...

    "the reason for the feature's removal was “one of those challenging functional trade-offs that sometimes need to be made during product development.”".

    Actually I think you meant to say: "The reason for the removal was because we think change sells, and if the change is disliked enough we can even sell the solution again with the next release, both options somewhat guarantee next release sales".

    And this is why I only rely on open Unix-like environments for my servers.

  8. joed

    Out of sight out of mind

    Just curious - how much of this no gui choice was prompted by metro junk unveiled in 2012? It might be inconvenient, but at least it does hurt one's esthetics.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Out of sight out of mind

      "how much of this no gui choice was prompted by metro junk unveiled in 2012"

      None whatsoever. It's about minimal attack surface and minimum install size options...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019