Windows Server Nano



  • So MS has decided they want some of that sweet container action. So they'll emulate docker and introduce a super-stripped down version of Windows Server called "Windows Server Nano".

    What I am curios is, will it have GUI?

    We have already argued about the need for Microsoft to up its terminal game. It was screamed at me that terminals are thing of the past and MS was right to neglect its "shell" and go the GUI route.

    But with some kind of super-bare container OS, will we have some nice GUI way to manage them? Some fake-o RDC, or a web panel? Or will MS do what I advocated and fully adopt PowerShell or even some kind of *nix shell / compatibility layer? And how will this affect the upcoming, already improved console in Windows 10?

    Interesting to speculate.


  • area_deu


  • area_deu

    I did my job and moved 2 posts to an existing topic: Oneboxes override classes when an image is too big?



  • INB4 Stupid.



  • Will it have to run on Linux hardware?



  • Oh noes

    Microsoft is getting its shit together

    Now 2015 won't be the year of the Linux desktop.



  • Is it? If I have to manage their fancy new container using cmd, I'd rather use docker, thanks.


  • :belt_onion:

    @cartman82 said:

    What I am curios is, will it have GUI?

    We have already argued about the need for Microsoft to up its terminal game

    The latest windows server already offers a terminal-only option.

    holy fuck is it ever god awful uselessly terrible.


  • Fake News

    What did it use as a shell then? Plain old Cmd or some powershell derivative? Or are you complaining about the lack of commands?

    At least give some use case which you think isn't possible or just way too hard.



  • He's talking about crap like this.



  • Even with powershell, I don't feel the same kind of comfort as with bash on *nix. Little things, like command completion, help screens etc.

    Could be just that I'm not used for it.

    But if MS is serious about going headless first, they need a SERIOUS overthink of their shell interface.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Even with powershell, I don't feel the same kind of comfort as with bash on *nix. Little things, like command completion, help screens etc.

    Could be just that I'm not used for it.

    Well, considering Bash is powered primarily by Stockholm Syndrome, I'm not surprised.



  • Much like Windows Server's Server Core installation option, it's designed to run headless, so it includes no GUI stack, local logon, or Remote Desktop support.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Well, considering Bash is powered primarily by Stockholm Syndrome, I'm not surprised.

    I guess we'll see. The next time I run stuff on MS stack, I probably won't have a GUI. So I'll be able to compare bash vs cmd/powershell/whatever alternative they provide head on.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Even with powershell, I don't feel the same kind of comfort as with bash on *nix. Little things, like command completion, help screens etc.

    The shell isn't the problem. The problem is that tasks are sooooo much easier to do with a GUI that MS hasn't put a ton of time into usability of its command line tools. Installing stuff on Windows Core is harder than I'm willing to tolerate.

    Fortunately, it's not the GUI that causes most of the security vulnerabilities. If you run only the necessary services, leave IE Enhanced Security turned on, and don't install any other web browser on the server, you'll be fine running the full GUI.



  • @Jaime said:

    Fortunately, it's not the GUI that causes most of the security vulnerabilities. If you run only the necessary services, leave IE Enhanced Security turned on, and don't install any other web browser on the server, you'll be fine running the full GUI.

    Security is not the issue, the overhead is. If you want to run 1000 Nano Servers in tiny containers, you can't have each have its own GUI stack.

    Agree about the CLI neglect. I'm just curios to see if they do something about it now.

    Can you imagine the world where Microsoft's CLI stuff is just as good (or better) than Linux? Or where Windows adopts some kind of nix interop / nix like shell / bash compatibility layer / whatever?

    Both futures fascinate me.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Can you imagine the world where Microsoft's CLI stuff is just as good (or better) than Linux?

    It never will be. PowerShell is already better than any Linux shell I'm familiar with. It's the command line programs themselves that need work. Since they will always be second-class citizens, most of them will never get past the "it works" stage.

    Remember that command-line tools are the recommended UI in Linux, the GUI is just a convenience. In Windows, the GUI is the first-class citizen and command line tools are there for automation and edge cases. To expect Windows to get to the point where their second-class tools are better than Linux's first-class tools is unrealistic.



  • What's wrong with remote management GUI tools? I thought it was the point of all those "Management Consoles" Windows has.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    What's wrong with remote management GUI tools?

    Follow the link I posted. It lists the 27 command line invocations necessary to get an IIS server to the point where it can be remotely administered.



  • @cartman82 said:

    If you want to run 1000 Nano Servers in tiny containers, you can't have each have its own GUI stack.

    Microsoft has a solution in the works for this.



  • How does this article address the GUI issue?



  • I was hoping that their container technology was higher up the stack. I did a little reading and it looks like you are right.


  • :belt_onion:

    @JBert said:

    Plain old Cmd or some powershell derivative?

    yes.

    @JBert said:

    At least give some use case which you think isn't possible or just way too hard.

    I didn't say it was "impossible". Just uselessly terrible when you have been admin to countless Windows Servers in the past and now basically 99% of your past experience is useless.

    @Jaime said:

    The shell isn't the problem. The problem is that tasks are sooooo much easier to do with a GUI that MS hasn't put a ton of time into usability of its command line tools. Installing stuff on Windows Core is harder than I'm willing to tolerate.

    Exactly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaime said:

    He's talking about crap like this.

    Without following the link, and just going from the URL, I have to ask WTF you wouldn't configure IIS with remote MMC?



  • That link only goes over minimal configuration necessary to get a remote management console going. Almost all of the steps are there to simply get IIS and its components installed. PKGMGR has a ways to go before it's apt or rpm.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaime said:

    That link only goes over minimal configuration necessary to get a remote management console going.

    I only tried Server Core out the tiniest bit, once. I take it you can't RDP in, then.

    Also, I did say [something that meant] I wasn't going to follow the link.



  • @FrostCat said:

    I take it you can't RDP in, then.

    That's a great question, the answer to which shows how non-discoverable it is. Here's how to enable RDP on Core:

    Cscript %windir%\system32\SCRegEdit.wsf /ar 0
    

    If you want to enable RDP from older clients, also do:

    Cscript %windir%\system32\SCRegEdit.wsf /cs 0
    


  • @Jaime said:

    That's a great question, the answer to which shows how non-discoverable it is. Here's how to enable RDP on Core:

    Question: How much overhead is in this? I presume WS Core comes with all the desktop stuff removed. So this installs it?

    BTW, once you get WS Core on a remote machine, how do you manage it? I presume there's some kind of MS version of SSH?

    Obviously, I never worked with a headless MS Server.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Question: How much overhead is in this? I presume WS Core comes with all the desktop stuff removed. So this installs it?

    RDP isn't much overhead. Core already runs in graphics mode, only instead of a shell, you get a CMD window.

    @cartman82 said:

    BTW, once you get WS Core on a remote machine, how do you manage it? I presume there's some kind of MS version of SSH?

    Most MS management tools have a "Connect to Another Computer" option. Also, you can use PowerShell remoting to type PowerShell command on your workstation and they execute on the server. There is a command-line remoting feature too called "WinRM".

    You can also get creative and enable the Telnet service, or install an SSH server. Telnet on Windows isn't quite as insecure as telnet on *nix.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    BTW, once you get WS Core on a remote machine, how do you manage it?

    As has been suggested and/or stated, you can manage some things with remote MMC. Most[1] of the MS consoles allow you to specify a remote computer. Sometimes (like in the case of IIS) you have to enable the remote management feature first.

    [1] ?

    Also, :hanzo:'d while out walking.



  • The first thing I thought was that vim was a far better text editor to copy...


  • SockDev

    Yes but can you run Notepad++ on it?



  • @cartman82 said:

    Can you imagine the world where Microsoft's CLI stuff is just as good (or better) than Linux? Or where Windows adopts some kind of nix interop / nix like shell / bash compatibility layer / whatever?


  • Fake News

    That's still no bash or zsh though, or anything “modern” for that matter...



  • I assumed he was just answering in the negative. Perhaps I should SPANK my shoulder aliens.



  • and makes you reboot 3 times while doing it


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.