9 ms·

It just makes sense to run a server OS that works well and is full-featured when there is no GUI.

tombert 6y ago
You know, I was thinking this, but honestly how much overhead is the Windows GUI when no one is logged into it? I know it's not nothing, but I suspect it's not that much, is it?
- code_duck 6y ago
  I don't mean as far as idle resource usage. The advantage of Linux is when you want to accomplish tasks without a great internet connection, but the windows tools are not evolved enough as far as command line functionality.
  - jen20 6y ago
    This was once the case, but PowerShell has been a solid administration tool for quite some time now. OpenSSH Server also ships as part of Windows, which was the missing link (since WinRM is, charitably, awful). The remote administration experience of Windows is now certainly comparable to Linux, in my opinion.
    - code_duck 6y ago
      Thanks, at this point I'm neither a sysadmin not a masochist so I haven't checked this out.
      - fomine3 6y ago
        You seem to want to retain your bias.
- mmcconnell1618 6y ago
  Windows Server is available in a "core" edition without a GUI.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Not only that but pretty much everything on Windows Server is exposed to PowerShell and has been for some time.
    - code_duck 6y ago
      And does it actually have well tested, well known, reliable functionality on everything you tend to use? Configuration of programs using easy to edit text files vs some system of ticking checkboxes in a GUI? RegEdit, is there a text version for that? Imo there's no comparison to the Linux ecosystem. Windows is GUI first.
      - cesarb 6y ago
        > RegEdit, is there a text version for that? AFAIK, yes, it's at %WINDIR%\System32\reg.exe
        code_duck 6y ago
        So it exists, but is the usability and functionality nearly equivalent? And the thing is that it also involves third-party software tools.
        int_19h 6y ago
        Nearly equivalent to what? It can do everything that the GUI can, if that's what you mean. Some things are obviously going to be less convenient, but that's just the nature of CLI. And what third party tools does that involve?
        code_duck 6y ago
- what-the-grump 6y ago
  It's a lot. I run core for critical windows infrastructure to cut costs, patch times, and save on core count, instance sizing and reduce attack footprint. The GUI is big, and I run that when needed, RDS, userland stuff etc.
- mekster 6y ago
  It's not the resource but the cognitive load is so high when you have to click little parts and you can only interact as good as what the UI offers. Apparently Windows is human first which isn't what servers are meant to be.
  - oblio 6y ago
    You don't have to click little parts, you can use Powershell :-)
koffiezet 6y ago
You don't want to know how many RHEL servers are out-there running a gui...
- mekster 6y ago
  As many as wannabe sys admins.
adolfojp 6y ago
Windows Server Core (no GUI) has been the default since 2012.

You know, I was thinking this, but honestly how much overhead is the Windows GUI when no one is logged into it? I know it's not nothing, but I suspect it's not that much, is it?

code_duck 6y ago
I don't mean as far as idle resource usage. The advantage of Linux is when you want to accomplish tasks without a great internet connection, but the windows tools are not evolved enough as far as command line functionality.
- jen20 6y ago
  This was once the case, but PowerShell has been a solid administration tool for quite some time now. OpenSSH Server also ships as part of Windows, which was the missing link (since WinRM is, charitably, awful). The remote administration experience of Windows is now certainly comparable to Linux, in my opinion.
  - code_duck 6y ago
    Thanks, at this point I'm neither a sysadmin not a masochist so I haven't checked this out.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      You seem to want to retain your bias.
mmcconnell1618 6y ago
Windows Server is available in a "core" edition without a GUI.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Not only that but pretty much everything on Windows Server is exposed to PowerShell and has been for some time.
  - code_duck 6y ago
    And does it actually have well tested, well known, reliable functionality on everything you tend to use? Configuration of programs using easy to edit text files vs some system of ticking checkboxes in a GUI? RegEdit, is there a text version for that? Imo there's no comparison to the Linux ecosystem. Windows is GUI first.
    - cesarb 6y ago
      > RegEdit, is there a text version for that? AFAIK, yes, it's at %WINDIR%\System32\reg.exe
      - code_duck 6y ago
        So it exists, but is the usability and functionality nearly equivalent? And the thing is that it also involves third-party software tools.
        int_19h 6y ago
        Nearly equivalent to what? It can do everything that the GUI can, if that's what you mean. Some things are obviously going to be less convenient, but that's just the nature of CLI. And what third party tools does that involve?
        code_duck 6y ago
what-the-grump 6y ago
It's a lot. I run core for critical windows infrastructure to cut costs, patch times, and save on core count, instance sizing and reduce attack footprint. The GUI is big, and I run that when needed, RDS, userland stuff etc.
mekster 6y ago
It's not the resource but the cognitive load is so high when you have to click little parts and you can only interact as good as what the UI offers. Apparently Windows is human first which isn't what servers are meant to be.
- oblio 6y ago
  You don't have to click little parts, you can use Powershell :-)

koffiezet 6y ago

You don't want to know how many RHEL servers are out-there running a gui...

mekster 6y ago
As many as wannabe sys admins.

adolfojp 6y ago

Windows Server Core (no GUI) has been the default since 2012.