Shell WTF
-
Just as easily as RDP.
THEN PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
What cloud provider offers a server image with this? Whar bith certifcicate wharr!?!?
Nope. Came with Unity preinstalled.
How does a game engine help?
When , try to at least keep them in the same stadium.
That's what I've been talking about this entire time. I'm not sure why the fuck people got some weird different idea in their heads.
-
That's what I've been talking about this entire time. I'm not sure why the fuck people got some weird different idea in their heads.
Are your shoulder aliens writing your posts for you now?
-
What cloud provider offers a server image with this? Whar bith certifcicate wharr!?!?
I'm sorry, I forgot that every server is a cloud VM. Woops.FWIW I'd be willing to bet I could X11-over-SSH onto a digitalocean droplet without any configuration. I might try later.
@blakeyrat said:How does a game engine help?
Try searching for relevant things to the conversation. https://unity.ubuntu.com/
-
FWIW I'd be willing to bet I could X11-over-SSH onto a digitalocean droplet without any configuration.
Oh hey look, Blakeyrat is right again.
Try searching for relevant things to the conversation. https://unity.ubuntu.com/
It's not my fault you idiot open source people used the same name as a widely-used game engine. Morons. "The next version of Ubuntu is going to be called Gamebryo! After that, the version will be id Tech 5."
-
-
Who cares about those?
The video game industry is approximately 50,000 times larger than the Linux OS industry.
-
It's really hard to search for Source games.
-
The video game industry is approximately 50,000 times larger than the Linux OS industry.
That doesn't answer the question.
-
Ok; then "a fuckload more people than care about Ubuntu".
-
Ok; then "a fuckload more people than care about Ubuntu".
Still avoiding the question, eh?
-
Ok; exactly 436,327,987 people. Here are their names in alphabetical order:
Aaron
Aaronson.
Anders
Anderson
etc.
-
Oh hey look, Blakeyrat is right again.
I'm sure there's valid logic somewhere in there. Maybe. Perhaps other people will understand how you came to that conclusion. Not me.
@blakeyrat said:@sloosecannon said:
Try searching for relevant things to the conversation. https://unity.ubuntu.com/
It's not my fault you idiot open source people used the same name as a widely-used game engine. Morons. "The next version of Ubuntu is going to be called Gamebryo! After that, the version will be id Tech 5."
Hi, I'm @sloosecannon, and I chose the name for the Ubuntu desktop environment.
I'm by no means an "open source" guy. If you note my post above, you'll see I prefer Windows for my servers with better hardware. Clearly though, the fact that Linux might perform better on lower-end hardware cannot possibly make sense to you. Congrats on being open-minded. I use the best tool available, and sometimes, that's Linux
-
Ok; exactly 436,327,987 people. Here are their names in alphabetical order:
Yeah, whatever, a bunch of kids and the adults who make a living off of the dads' wallets.
-
Notice that you weasel-worded it to "have a GUI" without bothering to say whether the GUI they "have" came with the OS or not. For all I know, you had to log in with a CLI and install 47 packages to make it work.
When someone else installs your server for you, you get what they install by default and have to install everything else yourself.
Believe it or not, a GUI is not standard for Linux servers. Why? Because you don't need a GUI to configure servers in Linux.
Like it or not, a GUI is overhead. On a server, the less shit you have taking up memory and CPU unnecessarily, the more you have for your actual server applications.
Even Microsoft thinks this is a good idea:
That's the reason Microsoft created a second installation option—Server Core—for Windows Server 2008: to eliminate any services and other features that are not essential for the support of certain commonly used server roles. For example, a Domain Name System (DNS) server really doesn't need Windows Internet Explorer installed on it because you wouldn't want to browse the Web from a DNS server for security reasons. And a DNS server doesn't even need a graphical user interface (GUI), because you can manage virtually all aspects of DNS either from the command line using the powerful Dnscmd.exe command, or remotely using the DNS Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in.
If I really wanted a desktop environment that I could remote into on my (sole) Linux server, I'd install the
ubuntu-desktoppackage and a VNC server (Tight VNC probably).To forestall your next question:
Wait,
ubuntu-desktop? I thought you said it was called Unity!ubuntu-desktopis a virtual (or meta) package. It makes sure all the packages that make up the Desktop option in the Ubuntu installer are installed. It could very well install 47 enterprisey packages, but it's guaranteed to install all the packages that make up the desktop in the current Ubuntu version.It's one of the neat advantages of a package manager knowing the various dependencies for its packages... you can have a package whose sole job is to install a bunch of other packages. Or in the case of the
linux-imagevirtual package, make sure the latest kernel update is installed.Incidentally, I never mentioned this in another thread, but Ubuntu will prompt you to restart if you update packages like
linux-imageoropenssl. The former because you're running an older kernel still, the latter because you may be running services that use OpenSSL that aren't part of a Ubuntu package (it auto-restarts the services it knows about).
-
Right; but you don't do that because it's stupid.
We have a server that is running only server core. But it also does nothing but host VMs, so its essential functions can be accessed using a Hyper-V manager. No need to install the extra GUI on top for that box.
-
-
-
Like I said, stupid.
No, stupid is wasting system resources and disk space to run a GUI on a VM host.
Or are you gonna go full swampy and refuse to recognize a valid use for a GUI-less server environment?
Filed Under: He went full swampy. Never go full swampy.
-
Like I said, stupid.
Wow, you really analyzed my post so effectively. I'm going to go reconfigure that server now!
-
If I say X is stupid, then a stupid person says "I do X", does that make doing X not stupid?
Stupid.
-
When @blakeyrat says it? Probably.
-
If I say X is stupid, then a stupid person says "I do X", does that make doing X not stupid?
Stupid.
Why is it stupid? @abarker provided a perfectly good example of a good use of Server Core. Why is it stupid?
If I say "I like drinking water, because it keeps me alive" and you say "Well that's stupid", does that make drinking water stupid?
-
If I say "I like drinking water, because it keeps me alive" and you say "Well that's stupid", does that make drinking water stupid?
If you're talking to @blakeyrat for reasons other than blowing off some steam, it makes telling him about your water thing stupid.
-
If you're talking to @blakeyrat for reasons other than blowing off some steam, it makes telling him about your water thing stupid.
Pretty sure there's a water-steam joke there that I'm not getting. After lunch and brain is tired
-
If I say X is stupid, then a stupid person says "I do X", does that make doing X not stupid?
Stupid.
Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
-
Pretty sure there's a water-steam joke there that I'm not getting. After lunch and brain is tired
The only thing that comes to mind involves pissing. :P
-
Pretty sure there's a water-steam joke there that I'm not getting.
Not intentionally, but you may be right.
-
If you're talking to @blakeyrat for reasons other than blowing off some steam, it makes telling him about
your water thinganything stupid.FTFY
-
Like I said, stupid.
You're never gonna be at the physical box, you're gonna work with it remotely using vSphere or HyperV Manager or System Center or whatever anyway (RDP not required), so why bother burning 0.5-1GB of RAM loading all the GUI crap no one will ever see?
-
Yes, I don't get it. My servers (and desktops) are all deployed using Salt. No GUI is required at all. You configure the configuration management system and let it run. Salt knows to load a GUI on the desktop machines.
Sitting in front of 2-10,000 servers, clicking on things manually, sounds like a waste of time, especially when you can script the deployment and configuration really, really quickly.
-
Salt
We're not even talking about Salt, Puppet, Chef, Docker, Windows RIS, Windows Anywhere, or unattend.xml right now, all of which work fine headless. We're talking about post-deployment operations, which can easily be done without the server running a GUI (or even CLI) as well.
-
You mean like starting and stopping services? Salt does that. (And Puppet and Chef, but probably not Docker). I'm sure there are things you can do with your "post-deployment" tools that I can't do with Salt. But the point remains -- none of this stuff needs a GUI on the server.
Maybe a simple, centralized web-based GUI that knows how to target its client machines.
(Notice this is your point, too. We are agreeing.)
-
inb4 but configuring these tools is hard so therefore GUIs are the way to go you're using stupid Linux hardware @blakeyrant
-
When you start up a new Linux server, it has no GUI anything and you need to use the CLI to set one up.
That's a matter of choice on Amazon's part -- they could easily provide a full X11 environment, or graphical tools that you can run forwarded to your local X11 server. They simply didn't, because their core userbase generally isn't after such a thing.
None exist.
Most people would call Debian Stable a server distro, and you get the on-by-default option to install a GUI when you're installing it...and once you have the GUI apps and a running SSHd (something you better damn well install on any Linux server, and generally is provided as an install-time option), you have all the ingredients needed to have X11-over-SSH admin of that box.
False.I just set up 3 Linux servers at home, each one from the latest Ubuntu LTS CD. All three have a GUI that's completely accessible if I ever had a need to. However, because SSH is a thing, I don't.
Incidentally, one of the three servers is a ~2003 Dell Inspiron desktop. The only version of Windows Server that could run with any semblance of speed is Server 03. Which is unsupported. Right now it's serving as a SSH VPN-style gateway and a small web server. Which it handles just fine. Couldn't do that with Windows server.
QFT -- and furthermore: once you have GUI apps loaded on the box and a SSHd running, you have what's needed to do X11-over-SSH -- the X11 server runs on the PC YOU'RE CONNECTING FROM, while the apps (X11 clients) run on the remote box.The video game industry is approximately 50,000 times larger than the Linux OS industry.
And about 50,000 times less important -- the line of evolution that lead to the Unix/Linux world flatly gave us the Internet as we know it.Like I said, stupid.
Do you really want to be billed for SAN space for the GUI bits of Windows (about 1/3rd of the overall installation) * the number of servers your company has? Never mind how fast 0.5 to 1GB of RAM adds up across VMs...Hint: I run a WS2k8R2 VM with only 512MB of RAM to serve as a "jump box" only because clientless SSL VPNs are a stupid pile of hacks that tend to break if your browser configuration isn't just so...and it's a dog on the best of days, nowhere near the point where I'd trust it with even a light service load; a Server Core or CLI Linux VM would do just fine serving up the occasional static page, IP address, or domain name with that much RAM or less, though...
-
And about 50,000 times less important -- the line of evolution that lead to the Unix/Linux world flatly gave us the Internet as we know it.
Yeah, that's why it's so shitty.
-
2/10, would not read again.
-
Yeah, that's why it's so shitty.
I'd rather have an Internet of open protocols that we can actually deal with the plumbing of than the Internet of black box appliances that Gates, Jobs, and others wished for...
Sometimes being a plumber is ugly, but it beats the pants off having a basement half full of sewage because the "authorized drain services provider" only works Tuesday mornings when it was a full moon the previous night, charges $1000/hour for that privilege, and fails to fix the problem half the time they come out for that expensive house call.
-
By "open protocols" you mean "least common denominator". Byebye any uniqueness whatsoever in OSes, filesystems, etc. You need to be Internet compatible! Which means you need to act like a Unix computer circa 1970 ALL THE TIME! Apple has a brilliant filesystem which allows tons of meta-data in carefully typed buckets? FUCK IT! INTERNET IS HERE! BRILLIANT FILE FORMAT GONE! FUCK YOU!
Yay. What a barrel of shit.
"How do you visit a website?" "http://blah.com" "Why the colon-slash-slash? What does 'http' mean?" "FUCK USABILITY!"
-
Even the stupid computer users know that you need http:// in front of a URL to get to a site. Do they know what it actually means? Probably not. But they still know it's required. Is there something wrong with that?
-
Yes.
Computers should be friendly, not monstrously complicated.
-
By "open protocols" you mean "least common denominator".
The least common denominator would be
command.comand its limitations, not Unixisms. Unixisms saved us from Microsoftisms. 1970s Unix was miles ahead of 1990s MS-DOS.
-
1970s Unix was miles ahead of 1990s MS-DOS.
And 1984 Macintosh was miles ahead of both.
-
As much as I like Mac OS, Jobs needed to do a better job of marketing if he wanted to win standards wars.
Also note that Jobs brought the file system attributes over to a unix, some 15-20 years ago, depending on how you're counting.
-
Whatever, fine, I get it, the world is what it is.
I just want the fucking idiot opensource dumbshits to say the IT world as it is is good. Because it's not. It's shit. Everything we're using today is worse than shit that existed 20 years ago. Every goddamned thing.
-
Even the stupid computer users know that you need http:// in front of a URL to get to a site.
You grossly overestimate the intelligence of the average computer user; for fuck's sake, a lot of them call Google a 'browser'!
-
yeah but if you asked them what http:// means they'd say "Oh yeah, that's that thing you put in front of the Google com!
-
Assuming they even know it exists; browsers nowadays are hiding it from users
-
Yup, these days, you only need a url scheme if you're using a "different" scheme. I have to use
file://to visit files on my system, for example. Orssh://to go to other filesystems by ssh.
-
Computers should be friendly, not monstrously complicated.
Tip: either the monstrous complexity winds up in the program (the "DWIM" interface, sort-of-akin to flight laws on a fly-by-wire Airbus), or in the user/UI -- go poke your head inside the cockpit of a Boeing 747-200 if you want to see what the physical version of a complex UI looks like.
There is an irreducible complexity level for just about everything -- go put that CS degree to work and bone up on your complexity theory.
-
Tip: either the monstrous complexity winds up in the program (the "DWIM" interface, sort-of-akin to flight laws on a fly-by-wire Airbus), or in the user/UI
Bullshit.
