10 ms·

Why doesn’t MS use Server Core? If they don’t why would anyone use Server at all? Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company?

by bnjms 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago
> Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company? Probably but Samba already does AD so you don't need Microsoft to do it. I guess PolKit at some point may offer similar functionality as group policy.
- EvanAnderson 4y ago
  I’ve been meaning to get around to trying Samba’s AD emulation for several years now. AD has been very solid in my experience. Samba has big shoes to fill in my mind. Is it really workable as an AD replacement for a real production AD environment today?
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Yes it is workable but you still need MS tools to configure things like group policy.
- thedougd 4y ago
  I don't think so. Start with Azure AD if you want the Microsoft system.
  - ncphil 4y ago
    Actually, you can use Azure AD even without any Windows systems.https://canonical.com/blog/new-active-directory-integration-features-in-ubuntu-22-04-faq https://canonical.com/blog/new-active-directory-integration-.... But licensing is still going to cost you. Having said that, as a former directory engineer (iPlanet/Sun/Oracle/ForgeRock) I don't think any of the Azure AD workarounds, including samba's (who really needs CIFS in a world where files can be served up over https with secure OAuth?), are worth all the extra effort. If you need an enterprise directory, you should deploy one. The good news is that both Ubuntu and Red Hat now support Azure AD, so you're not stuck with half measures. Of course not every shop _needs_ a system/network directory, and both those Linux ecosystems support a range of user and system management options that can do the job. Even if you finally find yourself in need of something more, AWS and GCP offer competitive identity services that can work just as well with non-legacy systems as Azure AD (so long as you don't have any Microsoft PaaS or SaaS dependencies).
- mianos 4y ago
  Even though it is possible to run an AD with samba, it requires more than just clickety click on a bunch of boxes and MS AD is quite a large very functional product.
  - gerdesj 4y ago
    It is absolutely wank compared to eDirectory but I'll be whistling in the wind on that one! eDir is what AD should have been.
    - GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
      Is there an OSS implementation?
      - Maursault 4y ago
        [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_service#LDAP_implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_service#LDAP_impleme...
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      eDir is (well, was?) awful at any kind of scale, especially if you have lots of different compliance policies.
muststopmyths 4y ago
Microsoft seems to have basically given up on windows except for legacy support. I suppose satya’s master plan is to eventually compete with Amazon on the price of Linux VMs
- gtirloni 4y ago
  That's not even remotely true.
- skissane 4y ago
  On the contrary, they’ve been adding new features which bring it closer to POSIX in capabilities - for example, various Windows 10 builds introduced Unix domain sockets, a pseudoterminal API, proper UTF-8 support, POSIX file delete semantics, etc. The pain of porting software from Linux/macOS to Windows has been reduced (significantly for some types of apps) and here’s to hoping they reduce it even further.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    Maybe they'll ship a usable version of huge pages so that ~all software can go like 10% faster someday. We've waited like 26 years so far.
    - jiggawatts 4y ago
      SQL Server has been able to do that on Windows for about a decade now. Just grant the “Lock pages in memory” privilege to the service account and it’ll do it automatically if the server has 16 GB of memory or more. I use it as a free 15% go-faster button in my consulting gigs.
      - anonymoushn 4y ago
        The current implementation is ok for programs that start soon after boot, run as root, and never exit, but even for server workloads there is a lot of other software out there.
  - 4y ago
closeparen 4y ago
Windows Server has a vast ecosystem of skilled technicians, vendors, and MSPs who maintain the installation in the closet of every barber shop, high school, auto parts distributor, and dental clinic in North America. These institutions don't have & wouldn't be able to get the expertise to run their own Linux servers in the same way. That's what Windows Server is for. But as applications migrate to SaaS and the cloud, the operational capabilities of random small customers stop being relevant. Microsoft is trying to catch up to this with Azure, and Azure is embracing Linux, because that's how the internet-scale backend game is played.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  You almost had it, until the very end. There are services in Azure that run on Linux, sure, but it’s not in danger of displacing Windows any time soon. Those closet ADs will end up dirsync’d to AAD, and their inventory/CRM/etc app will be whichever SaaS figures that out fastest.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    I don't deny that Microsoft is using Windows Server for internet-scale workloads. My contention is they are trying to capture the business of small software vendors, who previously built shrink-wrap products for Windows Server and are now reaching for something like AWS to host their SaaS. This type of business favors Linux, so Azure has to be a good place to run Linux.
beoberha 4y ago
The answer to this is “why not both”. I work on an Azure service and we use Server Core for our entire fleet. Most do.
- skissane 4y ago
  How do Azure’s architects decide when to use Linux and when to use Server Core?
  - __s 4y ago
    It depends on the team. There isn't a special cabal of architects
  - beoberha 4y ago
    I’ll echo the sibling comment and say it’s up to whoever is building the new service. I haven’t been involved with that so I can’t really speak to it.
Someone1234 4y ago
I suspect Microsoft's vision is for you to use Azure AD with site-local Read Only Domain Controllers running headless on Server Core in case of internet or Azure AD outages. Server Core is more competition to headful Windows Server, rather than Linux in particular. The only great argument for running Windows Server is Exchange and Active Directory (or IIS for legacy .Net Framework applications). That being said though, Exchange is so janky you're better off outsourcing that if at all possible.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  Is SQL Server good on Linux now? Lot of LoB apps out there (that used to be spreadsheets) based on that.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    No. You would have to be a maniac to use MSSQL on Linux in production. It’s so expensive anyway that the Windows Server licenses pale in comparison. This kind of thinking is the equivalent of putting no-name retread tyres on an F1 car. Like okay, it’ll function, technically. It will save money. Is it a good idea?

Why doesn’t MS use Server Core? If they don’t why would anyone use Server at all? Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company?

by bnjms 4y ago

Why doesn’t MS use Server Core? If they don’t why would anyone use Server at all? Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company?

encryptluks2 4y ago

> Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company? Probably but Samba already does AD so you don't need Microsoft to do it. I guess PolKit at some point may offer similar functionality as group policy.

EvanAnderson 4y ago
I’ve been meaning to get around to trying Samba’s AD emulation for several years now. AD has been very solid in my experience. Samba has big shoes to fill in my mind. Is it really workable as an AD replacement for a real production AD environment today?
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Yes it is workable but you still need MS tools to configure things like group policy.
thedougd 4y ago
I don't think so. Start with Azure AD if you want the Microsoft system.
- ncphil 4y ago
  Actually, you can use Azure AD even without any Windows systems.https://canonical.com/blog/new-active-directory-integration-features-in-ubuntu-22-04-faq https://canonical.com/blog/new-active-directory-integration-.... But licensing is still going to cost you. Having said that, as a former directory engineer (iPlanet/Sun/Oracle/ForgeRock) I don't think any of the Azure AD workarounds, including samba's (who really needs CIFS in a world where files can be served up over https with secure OAuth?), are worth all the extra effort. If you need an enterprise directory, you should deploy one. The good news is that both Ubuntu and Red Hat now support Azure AD, so you're not stuck with half measures. Of course not every shop _needs_ a system/network directory, and both those Linux ecosystems support a range of user and system management options that can do the job. Even if you finally find yourself in need of something more, AWS and GCP offer competitive identity services that can work just as well with non-legacy systems as Azure AD (so long as you don't have any Microsoft PaaS or SaaS dependencies).
mianos 4y ago
Even though it is possible to run an AD with samba, it requires more than just clickety click on a bunch of boxes and MS AD is quite a large very functional product.
- gerdesj 4y ago
  It is absolutely wank compared to eDirectory but I'll be whistling in the wind on that one! eDir is what AD should have been.
  - GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
    Is there an OSS implementation?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_service#LDAP_implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_service#LDAP_impleme...
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    eDir is (well, was?) awful at any kind of scale, especially if you have lots of different compliance policies.

muststopmyths 4y ago

Microsoft seems to have basically given up on windows except for legacy support. I suppose satya’s master plan is to eventually compete with Amazon on the price of Linux VMs

gtirloni 4y ago
That's not even remotely true.
skissane 4y ago
On the contrary, they’ve been adding new features which bring it closer to POSIX in capabilities - for example, various Windows 10 builds introduced Unix domain sockets, a pseudoterminal API, proper UTF-8 support, POSIX file delete semantics, etc. The pain of porting software from Linux/macOS to Windows has been reduced (significantly for some types of apps) and here’s to hoping they reduce it even further.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  Maybe they'll ship a usable version of huge pages so that ~all software can go like 10% faster someday. We've waited like 26 years so far.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    SQL Server has been able to do that on Windows for about a decade now. Just grant the “Lock pages in memory” privilege to the service account and it’ll do it automatically if the server has 16 GB of memory or more. I use it as a free 15% go-faster button in my consulting gigs.
    - anonymoushn 4y ago
      The current implementation is ok for programs that start soon after boot, run as root, and never exit, but even for server workloads there is a lot of other software out there.
- 4y ago

closeparen 4y ago

Windows Server has a vast ecosystem of skilled technicians, vendors, and MSPs who maintain the installation in the closet of every barber shop, high school, auto parts distributor, and dental clinic in North America. These institutions don't have & wouldn't be able to get the expertise to run their own Linux servers in the same way. That's what Windows Server is for. But as applications migrate to SaaS and the cloud, the operational capabilities of random small customers stop being relevant. Microsoft is trying to catch up to this with Azure, and Azure is embracing Linux, because that's how the internet-scale backend game is played.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
You almost had it, until the very end. There are services in Azure that run on Linux, sure, but it’s not in danger of displacing Windows any time soon. Those closet ADs will end up dirsync’d to AAD, and their inventory/CRM/etc app will be whichever SaaS figures that out fastest.
- closeparen 4y ago
  I don't deny that Microsoft is using Windows Server for internet-scale workloads. My contention is they are trying to capture the business of small software vendors, who previously built shrink-wrap products for Windows Server and are now reaching for something like AWS to host their SaaS. This type of business favors Linux, so Azure has to be a good place to run Linux.

beoberha 4y ago

The answer to this is “why not both”. I work on an Azure service and we use Server Core for our entire fleet. Most do.

skissane 4y ago
How do Azure’s architects decide when to use Linux and when to use Server Core?
- __s 4y ago
  It depends on the team. There isn't a special cabal of architects
- beoberha 4y ago
  I’ll echo the sibling comment and say it’s up to whoever is building the new service. I haven’t been involved with that so I can’t really speak to it.

Someone1234 4y ago

I suspect Microsoft's vision is for you to use Azure AD with site-local Read Only Domain Controllers running headless on Server Core in case of internet or Azure AD outages. Server Core is more competition to headful Windows Server, rather than Linux in particular. The only great argument for running Windows Server is Exchange and Active Directory (or IIS for legacy .Net Framework applications). That being said though, Exchange is so janky you're better off outsourcing that if at all possible.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
Is SQL Server good on Linux now? Lot of LoB apps out there (that used to be spreadsheets) based on that.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  No. You would have to be a maniac to use MSSQL on Linux in production. It’s so expensive anyway that the Windows Server licenses pale in comparison. This kind of thinking is the equivalent of putting no-name retread tyres on an F1 car. Like okay, it’ll function, technically. It will save money. Is it a good idea?