7 ms·

I recently spun up a Windows EC2 server instance in aws, running the latest Windows, and was not impressed. The entire system is not very well set up for operat

I recently spun up a Windows EC2 server instance in aws, running the latest Windows, and was not impressed. The entire system is not very well set up for operation via SSH. SSH is not even enabled by default on ec2. You have to Remote Desktop in, run a bunch of commands to enable it, and even then I could never figure out how to get authorized_keys to work. Once you have SSH running, you can run commands via command prompt or powershell. Powershell is apparently pretty modern and well designed, but it's quite confusing if you're used to Unix. A few applications I tried to install came as MSI's and they could not be installed via the command line, requiring the graphical interface. It felt like a bad way to run a server. You want fast and lightweight remote access on a server, and you want scriptability. Windows was simply worse in this area. Even if Windows was 100% compatible with Linux apps (including the modern CUDA deep learning stack...), I don't know why one would ever want to run Windows on a server. It lost the mindshare war, and I really see why. It really is that bad of an experience. The main reason I've heard people use Windows server is because they are forced to because of app compatibility (no tech startup would find themselves in this position), or the preference of maintaining a server with clicking in the GUI (again, not a place most of us here find ourselves). Anyways, I'd love to hear from someone, anyone, who likes Windows server more than Linux. The point of this comment is also to state the opinion that Windows is currently a very bad Linux distro.

bostonsre 5y ago
I don't use it in production but yea, I've read that automation for windows servers is mainly geared toward management with powershell. It's been a while since I've used it and it's definitely a lot different than bash, but it seemed petty elegant when I used it last. I like objected oriented programming, so having an object oriented shell was pretty neat.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  But PowerShell feels so clunky and slow to me (disclosure: I'm used to Linux). If you want object-oriented automation tools, Python works much better on Linux. Granted, it's not a shell, but if we're talking automation, then it doesn't really matter. I think the big issue for Windows is that most "admins" aren't in the habit of automating things, or at most they'll write a basic bat file. They still expect to click around their GUIs, so they'll be fairly reticent to install the Windows Server Core version [0]. "To be able to intervene in case something happens". The main issue with this is that they often aren't aware of possibilities offered only via PowerShell[1]. There's also the issue that when they look things over in the GUI, they won't see the configuration that's only visible through PowerShell. --- [0] Windows Server Core comes without a GUI, but it can be managed remotely with the usual tools. However, not all server roles work on it. Remote Desktop Gateway is one such example, even though it doesn't have any "desktop" functionality. [1] For example setting up split-view DNS. This is possible since Windows 2016, but only via PowerShell, and it's impossible to know from the GUI that it's activated. Also, this configuration doesn't replicate through ActiveDirectory.
nont 5y ago
I think mostly they're forced to use Windows server because of their proprietary software like outlook, active directory, iis etc. It was maybe easier to find people to support Windows servers... Just click here here and here to install.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  All of the modern GUI is just a skin over powershell. Most server functionality/configuration isn't exposed through the GUI.
recursive 5y ago
I don't have much experience with Linux. All our customers (health care, mostly US) have Windows servers. Some of them have some Linux also, but that seems to be a minority. We need to be able to ship software they can run. Most of our development is windows-based.
Uehreka 5y ago
In my experience, even MSIs can be run from the command line, but the amount of effort required to look this up and write a clean script is definitely way more than the equivalent Linux sysadmin task because Windows is just not expecting users to work this way at all. My gripe with installing things on Linux is that every project assumes install means “build from source”, and it’s often annoyingly hard to find the exact yum/apt-get name for something (do I need a PPA? is the name thing, libthing, libthing-dev, libthing2, or something else?) But this is a much smaller issue than anything I run into with Windows Server.
EvanAnderson 5y ago
MSIs, if put together well, easily install silently from the command line. msiexec /qn /i msi-name.msi Edit (now that I have more time): All the tooling to make Windows command-line manageable is there "out of the box". In a former "life" I staged a Windows Server 2008 R2 install that was remotely manageable with SSH (using a third-party SSH server) "out of the box". Similar to a "kickstart" w/ the Anaconda installer, you're talking about chaining scripts to run after the installation to enable desired functionality. It wasn't much different than automating a Linux install. If you enable the serial console you can do some nice command-line management of Windows VMs through your hypervisor's virtual serial port functionality too. I enjoy having the serial console open because I've been able to diagnose "hung" Windows machines (that is, not responding to GUI logon attempts) thru the console. It's very handy.
- malkia 5y ago
  and /norestart too
e12e 5y ago
I seem to recall authorized_keys works as expected; it goes into %HOME%\.ssh\authorized_keys (I'm not sure/can't recall if there are some similar permission requirements). Anyway, that's eg: c:\users\mcgyver\.ssh\authorized_keys And ssh needs a restart. That said, windows remote management is traditionally via WMI, not powershell. But PS has come a long way, and ssh is a sane transport. And it can function as a tunnel for WMI, RDP and PS (ssh is easier to use for key based auth, disabling password auth).
- mook 5y ago
  If you're a member of the administrators group, by default it uses something out of C:\ProgramData instead. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/openssh/openssh_server_configuration#authorizedkeysfile https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administrati...
  - e12e 5y ago
    But of course, you're not running as Administrator, right? That's why we have runas... :)
nullify88 5y ago
Its about 5 lines of powershell to install and start OpenSSH. Maybe a few more if you want to automatically inject public keys. Well within possibilities of a user_data script that runs on the first boot of an AWS instance. My main pain with OpenSSH on Windows was that its an older 7.7 Windows port that gets installed. However 8.1 is finally bundled as part of the recent KB5001391 and fixes some annoying bugs.
jaywalk 5y ago
I like Windows Server more than Linux. I administer both of them, although I am more familiar with Windows Server which definitely plays a big part in my preference. But I think that's going to be the biggest part of anyone's preference. Everything you complain about Windows Server not supporting is actually supported, but it was your unfamiliarity that was ultimately the issue. "Linux guy who is unfamiliar with Windows Server prefers Linux" isn't particularly shocking news.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  I'm probably pretty similar in experience to you. I "grew up" with Linux (and Xenix) in the early 90s, not being able to afford to buy Windows Server. I transitioned over to Windows Server around NT 3.51 and now handle both. All the tooling for headless / remotely-manageable Windows is "in there" in 2008 and later. Prior versions required more jumping thru hoops to manage via command line, but Resource Kit tools helped.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    My server administration journey actually began with a pirated copy of Windows 2000 Advanced Server. And I don't feel bad for it, because having started very young with Windows Server has directly led to many tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees paid to Microsoft at my direction :)
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      You missed a lot of tedious reboots by starting your experience with the Windows NT family w/ Windows 2000. Windows NT 4.0 was a breath of fresh air, as far as the UI went, compared to NT 3.51, but Windows NT didn't really come into its own, in my opinion, until Windows 2000. The tedious "re-apply the service pack and reboot" or "you thought about changing a setting, so therefore reboot" scenarios were nearly removed with Windows 2000. Having plug 'n play and hot-plug hardware work well was great, too.
      - 5y ago
kwdc 5y ago
I won't comment on the eBPF or WSL or even the Windows as linux debate, but I used to do some Windows admin. Some clarifications are in order. MSIs CAN be installed on servers with no gui required. Or much more commonly via powershell automation. Completely remotely and I'm not referring to remote desktop either. I know its fun to complain about Windows, but really, if you're not using powershell and the right tools such as a Windows Domain, you're kind of like some kind of debian linux admin that refuses to use bash scripts / debian apt / ssh etc plus chef or similar management. It really is that kind of comparison you're making. What would you say about a linux admin that refused to use SSH or any scripting? You'd wonder why they are complaining. Most of Windows Server comes alive when you join the machine to a domain and it gets access to actual infrastructure rather than some lone isolated server. This is to the point where you don't even need to log into the machine via remote desktop or ssh at all. In fact you manage the server from a completely different Windows machine with an admin account within the domain. You can then run the powershell script on your management computer and things happen on the target computer(s). I haven't even mentioned the multiple other tools you get as part of the machines being joined to a domain. Or you can deploy the script to the machine and execute it there. Still no remote desktop required.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  I can't imagine how anybody manages any number of Windows machines w/o a domain. Even just an NT 4.0-style "downlevel" domain (hosted with Samba, if need be) made life so much easier "back in the day". Once Active Directory came out I never looked back. Group Policy makes so many Windows administration tasks reproducible and automated. I keep meaning, year after year, to take at Samba and see how its Active Directory emulation functionality has progressed. I never end up getting around to it. Presumably, since so much of Active Directory is really just leveraging LDAP and a funky proprietary schema, it has progressed significantly. I've had a hard time figuring out how to position Desired State Configuration. It feels like an appeal to Linux sysadmins used to Puppet, Chef, et al. I can already do everything it can do with Group Policy, and I'd want an Active Directory domain for single-sign-on anyway. I have a hard time coming up with a use case for learning all new tooling when I've already got AD and Group Policy.
agumonkey 5y ago
> Powershell is apparently pretty modern and well designed, but it's quite confusing if you're used to Unix. bash is pretty confusing eve if you're used to unix -- Greg's
- majkinetor 5y ago
  Bash is simply outdated. It grown organically and thats what you got. Now you have zillion scripts and situation is even worst then with cobol. PowerShell was made by Unix people after 2+ decades of bash experience. It solved hundreds of things. Yet people complain it didn't solve few or it takes a bit more to load (no, verbosity = RTFM). You can't ever please I guess.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    were powershell designers from the unix world ? I didn't know that I don't mind bash warts, history is what it is, I don't sell powershell .. but someone saying powershell is confusing has serious jaws. powershell is really nice and only if you fancy sed/grep everything then you'll consider bash* superior
    - majkinetor 5y ago
      sed/grep/awk have nothing to do with bash tho and you can run them equally easy on Windows (cinst sed grep awk) if you like outdated reg ex.
      - agumonkey 5y ago
        yes they're not bash but they're an integral part of bash scripts pipe processing
        majkinetor 5y ago
        They are "integral" only because shell is lacking those functions. On some places tools are not there (docker image for example). Some people complain about size of the dotNet runtime, but if you install all those tools bash "needs" for comfy usage, you can equally easy install dotNet.
rasputnik6502 5y ago
I kinda like Windows server, mostly for the stability - both of the runtime and of functionality. Compared to Linux it requires less attention, i can concentrate more on software and less on the system: after two years of not touching i can still find configuration options in more or less same places. With Linux i have to re-learn quite a lot after not paying attention for a while. Missing good ssh/command line but not badly, I don't really need advanced shell scripting.

bostonsre 5y ago

I don't use it in production but yea, I've read that automation for windows servers is mainly geared toward management with powershell. It's been a while since I've used it and it's definitely a lot different than bash, but it seemed petty elegant when I used it last. I like objected oriented programming, so having an object oriented shell was pretty neat.

vladvasiliu 5y ago
But PowerShell feels so clunky and slow to me (disclosure: I'm used to Linux). If you want object-oriented automation tools, Python works much better on Linux. Granted, it's not a shell, but if we're talking automation, then it doesn't really matter. I think the big issue for Windows is that most "admins" aren't in the habit of automating things, or at most they'll write a basic bat file. They still expect to click around their GUIs, so they'll be fairly reticent to install the Windows Server Core version [0]. "To be able to intervene in case something happens". The main issue with this is that they often aren't aware of possibilities offered only via PowerShell[1]. There's also the issue that when they look things over in the GUI, they won't see the configuration that's only visible through PowerShell. --- [0] Windows Server Core comes without a GUI, but it can be managed remotely with the usual tools. However, not all server roles work on it. Remote Desktop Gateway is one such example, even though it doesn't have any "desktop" functionality. [1] For example setting up split-view DNS. This is possible since Windows 2016, but only via PowerShell, and it's impossible to know from the GUI that it's activated. Also, this configuration doesn't replicate through ActiveDirectory.

nont 5y ago

I think mostly they're forced to use Windows server because of their proprietary software like outlook, active directory, iis etc. It was maybe easier to find people to support Windows servers... Just click here here and here to install.

cptskippy 5y ago
All of the modern GUI is just a skin over powershell. Most server functionality/configuration isn't exposed through the GUI.

recursive 5y ago

I don't have much experience with Linux. All our customers (health care, mostly US) have Windows servers. Some of them have some Linux also, but that seems to be a minority. We need to be able to ship software they can run. Most of our development is windows-based.

Uehreka 5y ago

In my experience, even MSIs can be run from the command line, but the amount of effort required to look this up and write a clean script is definitely way more than the equivalent Linux sysadmin task because Windows is just not expecting users to work this way at all. My gripe with installing things on Linux is that every project assumes install means “build from source”, and it’s often annoyingly hard to find the exact yum/apt-get name for something (do I need a PPA? is the name thing, libthing, libthing-dev, libthing2, or something else?) But this is a much smaller issue than anything I run into with Windows Server.

EvanAnderson 5y ago

MSIs, if put together well, easily install silently from the command line. msiexec /qn /i msi-name.msi Edit (now that I have more time): All the tooling to make Windows command-line manageable is there "out of the box". In a former "life" I staged a Windows Server 2008 R2 install that was remotely manageable with SSH (using a third-party SSH server) "out of the box". Similar to a "kickstart" w/ the Anaconda installer, you're talking about chaining scripts to run after the installation to enable desired functionality. It wasn't much different than automating a Linux install. If you enable the serial console you can do some nice command-line management of Windows VMs through your hypervisor's virtual serial port functionality too. I enjoy having the serial console open because I've been able to diagnose "hung" Windows machines (that is, not responding to GUI logon attempts) thru the console. It's very handy.

malkia 5y ago
and /norestart too

e12e 5y ago

I seem to recall authorized_keys works as expected; it goes into %HOME%\.ssh\authorized_keys (I'm not sure/can't recall if there are some similar permission requirements). Anyway, that's eg: c:\users\mcgyver\.ssh\authorized_keys And ssh needs a restart. That said, windows remote management is traditionally via WMI, not powershell. But PS has come a long way, and ssh is a sane transport. And it can function as a tunnel for WMI, RDP and PS (ssh is easier to use for key based auth, disabling password auth).

mook 5y ago
If you're a member of the administrators group, by default it uses something out of C:\ProgramData instead. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/openssh/openssh_server_configuration#authorizedkeysfile https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administrati...
- e12e 5y ago
  But of course, you're not running as Administrator, right? That's why we have runas... :)

nullify88 5y ago

Its about 5 lines of powershell to install and start OpenSSH. Maybe a few more if you want to automatically inject public keys. Well within possibilities of a user_data script that runs on the first boot of an AWS instance. My main pain with OpenSSH on Windows was that its an older 7.7 Windows port that gets installed. However 8.1 is finally bundled as part of the recent KB5001391 and fixes some annoying bugs.

jaywalk 5y ago

I like Windows Server more than Linux. I administer both of them, although I am more familiar with Windows Server which definitely plays a big part in my preference. But I think that's going to be the biggest part of anyone's preference. Everything you complain about Windows Server not supporting is actually supported, but it was your unfamiliarity that was ultimately the issue. "Linux guy who is unfamiliar with Windows Server prefers Linux" isn't particularly shocking news.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
I'm probably pretty similar in experience to you. I "grew up" with Linux (and Xenix) in the early 90s, not being able to afford to buy Windows Server. I transitioned over to Windows Server around NT 3.51 and now handle both. All the tooling for headless / remotely-manageable Windows is "in there" in 2008 and later. Prior versions required more jumping thru hoops to manage via command line, but Resource Kit tools helped.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  My server administration journey actually began with a pirated copy of Windows 2000 Advanced Server. And I don't feel bad for it, because having started very young with Windows Server has directly led to many tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees paid to Microsoft at my direction :)
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    You missed a lot of tedious reboots by starting your experience with the Windows NT family w/ Windows 2000. Windows NT 4.0 was a breath of fresh air, as far as the UI went, compared to NT 3.51, but Windows NT didn't really come into its own, in my opinion, until Windows 2000. The tedious "re-apply the service pack and reboot" or "you thought about changing a setting, so therefore reboot" scenarios were nearly removed with Windows 2000. Having plug 'n play and hot-plug hardware work well was great, too.
    - 5y ago

kwdc 5y ago

I won't comment on the eBPF or WSL or even the Windows as linux debate, but I used to do some Windows admin. Some clarifications are in order. MSIs CAN be installed on servers with no gui required. Or much more commonly via powershell automation. Completely remotely and I'm not referring to remote desktop either. I know its fun to complain about Windows, but really, if you're not using powershell and the right tools such as a Windows Domain, you're kind of like some kind of debian linux admin that refuses to use bash scripts / debian apt / ssh etc plus chef or similar management. It really is that kind of comparison you're making. What would you say about a linux admin that refused to use SSH or any scripting? You'd wonder why they are complaining. Most of Windows Server comes alive when you join the machine to a domain and it gets access to actual infrastructure rather than some lone isolated server. This is to the point where you don't even need to log into the machine via remote desktop or ssh at all. In fact you manage the server from a completely different Windows machine with an admin account within the domain. You can then run the powershell script on your management computer and things happen on the target computer(s). I haven't even mentioned the multiple other tools you get as part of the machines being joined to a domain. Or you can deploy the script to the machine and execute it there. Still no remote desktop required.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
I can't imagine how anybody manages any number of Windows machines w/o a domain. Even just an NT 4.0-style "downlevel" domain (hosted with Samba, if need be) made life so much easier "back in the day". Once Active Directory came out I never looked back. Group Policy makes so many Windows administration tasks reproducible and automated. I keep meaning, year after year, to take at Samba and see how its Active Directory emulation functionality has progressed. I never end up getting around to it. Presumably, since so much of Active Directory is really just leveraging LDAP and a funky proprietary schema, it has progressed significantly. I've had a hard time figuring out how to position Desired State Configuration. It feels like an appeal to Linux sysadmins used to Puppet, Chef, et al. I can already do everything it can do with Group Policy, and I'd want an Active Directory domain for single-sign-on anyway. I have a hard time coming up with a use case for learning all new tooling when I've already got AD and Group Policy.

agumonkey 5y ago

> Powershell is apparently pretty modern and well designed, but it's quite confusing if you're used to Unix. bash is pretty confusing eve if you're used to unix -- Greg's

majkinetor 5y ago
Bash is simply outdated. It grown organically and thats what you got. Now you have zillion scripts and situation is even worst then with cobol. PowerShell was made by Unix people after 2+ decades of bash experience. It solved hundreds of things. Yet people complain it didn't solve few or it takes a bit more to load (no, verbosity = RTFM). You can't ever please I guess.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  were powershell designers from the unix world ? I didn't know that I don't mind bash warts, history is what it is, I don't sell powershell .. but someone saying powershell is confusing has serious jaws. powershell is really nice and only if you fancy sed/grep everything then you'll consider bash* superior
  - majkinetor 5y ago
    sed/grep/awk have nothing to do with bash tho and you can run them equally easy on Windows (cinst sed grep awk) if you like outdated reg ex.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      yes they're not bash but they're an integral part of bash scripts pipe processing
      - majkinetor 5y ago
        They are "integral" only because shell is lacking those functions. On some places tools are not there (docker image for example). Some people complain about size of the dotNet runtime, but if you install all those tools bash "needs" for comfy usage, you can equally easy install dotNet.

rasputnik6502 5y ago

I kinda like Windows server, mostly for the stability - both of the runtime and of functionality. Compared to Linux it requires less attention, i can concentrate more on software and less on the system: after two years of not touching i can still find configuration options in more or less same places. With Linux i have to re-learn quite a lot after not paying attention for a while. Missing good ssh/command line but not badly, I don't really need advanced shell scripting.