4 ms·

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 prefer

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      I do mostly Windows, and given the option would rather keep doing so, however you just reminded me of the "fun" of writing ISAPI extensions on Windows 2000. For those unaware of it, IIS used to execute fully on kernel level, so ISAPI extensions were comparable to device drivers, which meant any programming error would just kill the kernel, thus requiring a reboot. So tracking down memory corruption issues on ISAPI extensions was bound to have a countless amount of reboots during the work day.
      - voidfunc 6y ago
        Goodness, who decided that was a good idea?!
        EvanAnderson 6y ago
        Thr ISAPI modules don't run in kernel mode, but they're in-process with IIS (back in W2K) and it's a bit fraught. I assumed that kernel-mode HTTP service was an answer by Microsoft to the "Tux" web server: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUX_web_server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUX_web_server
jiggawatts 6y ago
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I don't complain that Linux is hard to administer with PowerShell. I learned SSH and Bash. The reverse does not seem to be true, Linux admins generally expect everything to work exactly the same in Windows as in Linux. A negative effect of this is that Windows has many recent hires working on some of their teams with mostly Linux experience, and they're copying Linuxisms into Windows bug-for-bug. Even if it makes no sense in Windows. A recent example that boiled my blood is that the new Windows Terminal emulates the incorrect "Clear-Host" behaviour of ancient Linux terminals. It doesn't clear the virtual terminal any more, just the current viewport. Before, it was a convenient way to reset the terminal's display state without resetting variables. NOW, it just deletes some of the display state, so if you scroll back you get scrambled garbage. This is not a small thing: it's significantly impacting my workflow. I've seen garbage output, overwritten output, scrolling back accidentally corrupts the output completely, you name it. This is not a coding error, this is correctly copying a limitation of some terrible terminal from the 1960s nobody should give a shit about in 2021. Worse: If you look back at the history of the debate around fixing this, as far back as the early 1990s there were Linux people advocating for fixing this! It's obviously broken. Then: When the same debate came up in the Windows Terminal issue tracker, people making the same rational, logical arguments were shot down with: "We have to copy the standard." Hint: There is no "standard". This is not an RFC. It's just what Linux does! Linux does this just because this is what some random MIT or Berkley student wrote in a hurry in the 1960s! If you make the argument that the majority of systems work some way or another, and that's a defacto standard... then Windows should win because it was used for the the vast majority of computing for many decades. Linux has taken over only recently, and only in some areas (Android and web servers).
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Microsoft is getting really lazy with their new "PowerShell for everything" mantra. Many examples with Windows Server and even the Azure Portal. It's great to have the ability to do things with both a GUI and CLI, but then arbitrarily limiting things to one or the other (usually the CLI) gets incredibly annoying.
  - majkinetor 6y ago
pjc50 6y ago
> Everything you complain about Windows Server not supporting is actually supported, but it was your unfamiliarity that was ultimately the issue. Funny, I've seen people saying exactly that when newbies bounce off some aspect of Linux, and in both cases it's a usability failure. Discoverability of this stuff on Windows is terrible. Things like powershell remoting exist but getting them working between two random machines is opaque. Yes, some of it gets easier in a domain, and that's one of the big Windows wins (since the NIS/YP era), but domains are an extremely premium feature.
- majkinetor 6y ago
  Its trivial without domain TBH. If on workgroup, you just have to have the same user name on different machine and it works like in domain. > Discoverability of this stuff on Windows is terrible Meh... matter of taste and adequate Windows social skills, not a fact.
  - gerdesj 6y ago
    "If on workgroup, you just have to have the same user name on different machine and it works like in domain" ... and password. ... and no it doesn't really because an AD has a few other extras, such as Kerberos and an LDAP database with some odd ideas to chat to. You can of course spin up a Samba AD DC or two for a cheaper alternative.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  I don't think comparing discoverability of features in Desktop Linux to Windows Server is fair at all. And really, if you want to talk about discoverability between Linux in a server role and a Windows Server... Windows Server wins by an absolute landslide. But I don't think discoverability is all that important when you're talking about server administration.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  As if UNIX was any better with its archaic configuration files and cryptic commands to avoid typing one extra character. Most of the stuff I learned about UNIX required actually buying books, not much different from Windows. Drop someone on a proper UNIX just with man to see how far they go joining a NFS server or logging in via yellow pages.
majkinetor 6y ago
This. RTFM
coliveira 6y ago
Windows OS is a thing of the past, when people were supposed to do most of their work from a desktop. As soon as computing become based on remote services, Windows lost its main reason to exist. It is Windows that needs to adapts to the new times, not people working on other OSs.
- rasputnik6502 6y ago
  It is the OS from the past and still most people use it on their computers. Because they are still doing things from the desktop. And I suppose they're happy not having to adapt to technology du jour again and again.

EvanAnderson 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I do mostly Windows, and given the option would rather keep doing so, however you just reminded me of the "fun" of writing ISAPI extensions on Windows 2000. For those unaware of it, IIS used to execute fully on kernel level, so ISAPI extensions were comparable to device drivers, which meant any programming error would just kill the kernel, thus requiring a reboot. So tracking down memory corruption issues on ISAPI extensions was bound to have a countless amount of reboots during the work day.
    - voidfunc 6y ago
      Goodness, who decided that was a good idea?!
      - EvanAnderson 6y ago
        Thr ISAPI modules don't run in kernel mode, but they're in-process with IIS (back in W2K) and it's a bit fraught. I assumed that kernel-mode HTTP service was an answer by Microsoft to the "Tux" web server: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUX_web_server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUX_web_server

jiggawatts 6y ago

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I don't complain that Linux is hard to administer with PowerShell. I learned SSH and Bash. The reverse does not seem to be true, Linux admins generally expect everything to work exactly the same in Windows as in Linux. A negative effect of this is that Windows has many recent hires working on some of their teams with mostly Linux experience, and they're copying Linuxisms into Windows bug-for-bug. Even if it makes no sense in Windows. A recent example that boiled my blood is that the new Windows Terminal emulates the incorrect "Clear-Host" behaviour of ancient Linux terminals. It doesn't clear the virtual terminal any more, just the current viewport. Before, it was a convenient way to reset the terminal's display state without resetting variables. NOW, it just deletes some of the display state, so if you scroll back you get scrambled garbage. This is not a small thing: it's significantly impacting my workflow. I've seen garbage output, overwritten output, scrolling back accidentally corrupts the output completely, you name it. This is not a coding error, this is correctly copying a limitation of some terrible terminal from the 1960s nobody should give a shit about in 2021. Worse: If you look back at the history of the debate around fixing this, as far back as the early 1990s there were Linux people advocating for fixing this! It's obviously broken. Then: When the same debate came up in the Windows Terminal issue tracker, people making the same rational, logical arguments were shot down with: "We have to copy the standard." Hint: There is no "standard". This is not an RFC. It's just what Linux does! Linux does this just because this is what some random MIT or Berkley student wrote in a hurry in the 1960s! If you make the argument that the majority of systems work some way or another, and that's a defacto standard... then Windows should win because it was used for the the vast majority of computing for many decades. Linux has taken over only recently, and only in some areas (Android and web servers).

jaywalk 6y ago
Microsoft is getting really lazy with their new "PowerShell for everything" mantra. Many examples with Windows Server and even the Azure Portal. It's great to have the ability to do things with both a GUI and CLI, but then arbitrarily limiting things to one or the other (usually the CLI) gets incredibly annoying.
- majkinetor 6y ago

pjc50 6y ago

> Everything you complain about Windows Server not supporting is actually supported, but it was your unfamiliarity that was ultimately the issue. Funny, I've seen people saying exactly that when newbies bounce off some aspect of Linux, and in both cases it's a usability failure. Discoverability of this stuff on Windows is terrible. Things like powershell remoting exist but getting them working between two random machines is opaque. Yes, some of it gets easier in a domain, and that's one of the big Windows wins (since the NIS/YP era), but domains are an extremely premium feature.

majkinetor 6y ago
Its trivial without domain TBH. If on workgroup, you just have to have the same user name on different machine and it works like in domain. > Discoverability of this stuff on Windows is terrible Meh... matter of taste and adequate Windows social skills, not a fact.
- gerdesj 6y ago
  "If on workgroup, you just have to have the same user name on different machine and it works like in domain" ... and password. ... and no it doesn't really because an AD has a few other extras, such as Kerberos and an LDAP database with some odd ideas to chat to. You can of course spin up a Samba AD DC or two for a cheaper alternative.
jaywalk 6y ago
I don't think comparing discoverability of features in Desktop Linux to Windows Server is fair at all. And really, if you want to talk about discoverability between Linux in a server role and a Windows Server... Windows Server wins by an absolute landslide. But I don't think discoverability is all that important when you're talking about server administration.
pjmlp 6y ago
As if UNIX was any better with its archaic configuration files and cryptic commands to avoid typing one extra character. Most of the stuff I learned about UNIX required actually buying books, not much different from Windows. Drop someone on a proper UNIX just with man to see how far they go joining a NFS server or logging in via yellow pages.

majkinetor 6y ago

This. RTFM

coliveira 6y ago

Windows OS is a thing of the past, when people were supposed to do most of their work from a desktop. As soon as computing become based on remote services, Windows lost its main reason to exist. It is Windows that needs to adapts to the new times, not people working on other OSs.

rasputnik6502 6y ago
It is the OS from the past and still most people use it on their computers. Because they are still doing things from the desktop. And I suppose they're happy not having to adapt to technology du jour again and again.