Windows Server 8



  • Microsoft to World: "Our servers are just as difficult to work with as Linux servers now!"

    World to Microsoft: "Ok; we'll just use Linux then."



  • Linux users: "Oooh, let me see!"



  • Linux servers really aren't that hard to use.

    Until they are. Then it takes two weeks of web searching, forum-hopping, reading blog posts that explain how to fix your exact issue on a version from eight years ago and so it isn't even slightly applicable anymore so why the hell is it the top search result on every major search engine, getting called stupid by various elitist Linux communities when you ask for help, pissing off an entire Linux community when you try to prevent the name-calling by starting with "I don't know much Linux so please walk me through this" and getting called stupid instead of getting answers to something that "everyone should already know", getting told to just use Google (which of course gives me old blog posts and forum topics from eight years ago and isn't the least bit helpful) by elitists who "don't have the time to answer every newb's questions" but apparently have plenty of time to sit on forums and call them names all day, getting sick of said elitist communities and reformatting and reinstalling Linux to see if that helps (which it doesn't), finally having someone who is willing to help give you some big long list of commands to type in and then calling you stupid and leaving when you ask what it means, and eventually you just say "Screw this, I'm buying a Windows license."



  • Great, mix up an old Linux installation with Windows 8

    BTW, what's up with this? Did I miss anything today?



  • @ubersoldat said:

    Great, mix up an old Linux installation with Windows 8

    BTW, what's up with this? Did I miss anything today?

    Microsoft's making a bunch of noise about how the GUI in Windows Server 8 is optional and all-but-deprecated. (See the second slide here, where it says "for system admins the message is clear: get used to working in PowerShell." But sources vary on how deprecated, so...

    The real question to me is, why would Microsoft take the ONE thing that really differentiates their server OS from the competition and discourage its use? Yeah, I know they have a lot of big corporate installations clamoring for a fully scriptable OS, but:
    1) Windows Server 2008 is already full scriptable
    2) "fully scriptable" and "installs a GUI" are not mutually-exclusive anyway



  • No matter what folks say, I highly doubt Microsoft will stop making their GUI a hugely powerful part of the OS.

     I'm sure everyone's wanted a powerful CLI in windows before, but the GUI is what got Windows Server its market share.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The real question to me is, why would Microsoft take the ONE thing that really differentiates their server OS from the competition and discourage its use? Yeah, I know they have a lot of big corporate installations clamoring for a fully scriptable OS, but:

    1) Windows Server 2008 is already full scriptable

    2) "fully scriptable" and "installs a GUI" are not mutually-exclusive anyway

    Is there some ssh-like ability to remote into one of these? I haven't read in depth about this stuff, but I haven't noticed anything obvious like that. I understand that there are powershell cmdlets that allow you to do stuff across the network, but that seems like it might be less convenient for some stuff.

    The main reason I could think of is the general rule about installing stuff on servers: Don't install it if you don't need it. Things like the previous GDI+ vulnerabilities come to mind. In other words, any GUI based vulnerabilities simply won't be present if it isn't there. Note that I'm not making a judgment here about the pros or cons of that equation.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    The real question to me is, why would Microsoft take the ONE thing that really differentiates their server OS from the competition and discourage its use? Yeah, I know they have a lot of big corporate installations clamoring for a fully scriptable OS, but:

    1) Windows Server 2008 is already full scriptable

    2) "fully scriptable" and "installs a GUI" are not mutually-exclusive anyway

    Is there some ssh-like ability to remote into one of these? I haven't read in depth about this stuff, but I haven't noticed anything obvious like that. I understand that there are powershell cmdlets that allow you to do stuff across the network, but that seems like it might be less convenient for some stuff.

    The main reason I could think of is the general rule about installing stuff on servers: Don't install it if you don't need it. Things like the previous GDI+ vulnerabilities come to mind. In other words, any GUI based vulnerabilities simply won't be present if it isn't there. Note that I'm not making a judgment here about the pros or cons of that equation.

    As I understand it, yes. I haven't messed around with that yet, though.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @ubersoldat said:
    Great, mix up an old Linux installation with Windows 8

    BTW, what's up with this? Did I miss anything today?

    Microsoft's making a bunch of noise about how the GUI in Windows Server 8 is optional and all-but-deprecated. (See the second slide here, where it says "for system admins the message is clear: get used to working in PowerShell." But sources vary on how deprecated, so...

    The real question to me is, why would Microsoft take the ONE thing that really differentiates their server OS from the competition and discourage its use? Yeah, I know they have a lot of big corporate installations clamoring for a fully scriptable OS, but:
    1) Windows Server 2008 is already full scriptable
    2) "fully scriptable" and "installs a GUI" are not mutually-exclusive anyway

    Last time I set up a Windows network (pretty recently - server 08) I used Server Core. unfortunately, at the time, Powershell (and as a result, SQL Server) weren't capable of running on core edition because it didn't have the .net framework. Which also means any sane use of IIS is out. R2 added a limited framework 2.0, enough for Powershell and SQL Server. Hopefully they've fixed this for 8 and allow a full, modern version of the framework. Personally, I enjoyed working with the Core servers (which, as a result of the limitations, ended up as domain controllers and fileservers and little else), but I'm a sadistic fuckup.

     The urge to administrate on the server was gone (because you couldn't - literally the only things available wereinstallation and sweeping configuration options). All the remote administration tools work exactly as they normally do, so the only person who even needs to know the commandline is the guy doing the initial setup and configuration.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Microsoft to World: "Our servers are just as difficult to work with as Linux servers now!"

    World to Microsoft: "Ok; we'll just use Linux then."

    Or to put it another way, whenever a corporation's marketing tells you their product is "new and improved", they're implicitly admitting that what they've been selling you up to now was old and crappy.




  • @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?



  •  Having not used Windows 8 Server, does it have a powerful command line interface? By powerful, I mean more powerful than the command line in Windows 7. This is a feature I think Linux is much stronger on than Windows, although Windows does have far more GUIs for things, which make it less of a barrier to entry. No need to remove the GUI, just make it optional at install timeand include a very powerful CLI and allow the sysadmins to choose. You'll probably find in the majority of cases that admins want both.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.



  • @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    Why should it be terribly surprising that changing one of the words in a phrase changes it into a different phrase with a different meaning?



  • @DaveK said:

    @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".



  • @derula said:

    @DaveK said:

    @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".

     

    Two words: two words.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @derula said:

    @DaveK said:

    @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".

     

    Two words: two words.

     

    I've got a three letter word for you: J-O-B-S



  • @boomzilla said:

    @dhromed said:

    @derula said:

    @DaveK said:

    @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".

     

    Two words: two words.

    I've got a three letter word for you: J-O-B-S

    You're a retard and can't count. That's a five letter word. Also, "Steve Jobs" is the same as "all but" as well.



  • @dhromed said:

    @derula said:

    @DaveK said:

    @derula said:

    @Anonymouse said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?

    I've always all but wondered that, too.

    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".

    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".

     

    Two words: two words. 

     

    Four words: two words: two words.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    @dhromed said:
    @derula said:
    @DaveK said:
    @derula said:
    @Anonymouse said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?
    I've always all but wondered that, too.
    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".
    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".
    Two words: two words.

    Four words: two words: zero words.

    FTFY.

    Alternatively:

    @Someone You Know said:

    @dhromed said:
    @derula said:
    @DaveK said:
    @derula said:
    @Anonymouse said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    all-but-deprecated
    TRWTF is the phrase "all but". That rings to me like "anything but", when it is actually anything but "anything but"! What's up with that?
    I've always all but wondered that, too.
    Well it's also only one word away from "nothing but" and "everything but".  And "all teapot".  And only two words away from "water butt".
    It's also only two words away from "you suck", "fucking troll", "go away" and "never return".
    Two words: two words.

    Six words: four words: two words.

    FTFY.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Having not used Windows 8 Server, does it have a powerful command line interface? By powerful, I mean more powerful than the command line in Windows 7.

    Go download it and knock yourself out.

    BTW, since you're a Linux user and therefore entirely ignorant of Windows, I assume when you say "the" command line in Windows 7, you're referring to CMD. You're wrong; Windows 7 has several CLIs: CMD, VBScript/JScript, PowerShell. CMD is only really there for backwards compatibility and geezers who refuse to learn anything new ever. If think CMD is awful, you're right. If you think that means "the" command line in Windows 7 is awful, you're dead wrong.

    @ASheridan said:

    This is a feature I think Linux is much stronger on than Windows,

    Windows is already on-par with Linux, and PowerShell is a much better CLI UI than Bash. Then again, smearing feces on your monitor is a better CLI UI than Bash, so...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Windows is already on-par with Linux, and PowerShell is a much better CLI UI than Bash.
    PowerShell's history is broken in the exactly same way as cmd's. That alone makes it a much worse user experience.



  • I have been using 2008R2 servers as core (no GUI installs) for almost two years. Never a problem with PowerShell or .NET. Also all of the GUI capability is available, it just runns on a different box...why load down your server when the work can be seemlessly (nearly) done from another box?



  • @ender said:

    PowerShell's NT Console Subsystem's that PowerShell is using history is broken in the exactly same way as cmd's NT Console Subsystem's that cmd is using, because they are the same thing. That alone makes it a much worse user experience.

    FTFY. Also, you're not supposed to use the PowerShell console for anything large, use the PowerShell ISE instead. You can fold the "script editor" part, and leave only the interactive runtime window.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ASheridan said:

    Having not used Windows 8 Server, does it have a powerful command line interface? By powerful, I mean more powerful than the command line in Windows 7.

    Go download it and knock yourself out.

    BTW, since you're a Linux user and therefore entirely ignorant of Windows, I assume when you say "the" command line in Windows 7, you're referring to CMD. You're wrong; Windows 7 has several CLIs: CMD, VBScript/JScript, PowerShell. CMD is only really there for backwards compatibility and geezers who refuse to learn anything new ever. If think CMD is awful, you're right. If you think that means "the" command line in Windows 7 is awful, you're dead wrong.

    @ASheridan said:

    This is a feature I think Linux is much stronger on than Windows,

    Windows is already on-par with Linux, and PowerShell is a much better CLI UI than Bash. Then again, smearing feces on your monitor is a better CLI UI than Bash, so...

    And that's before you install more consoles for your own purposes, such as Lua, or Python, or Ruby (or the Iron versions of the latter two), or what have you. Granted, some of those you can have on Linux as well. Also granted, I haven't tried any of them except Powershell and cmd. I do like Bash considerably better than smearing feces...well, anywhere, really, though.

    Also, if there are things you actually like better about bash than Powershell, you can install Cygwin and have both (Blakeyrat might consider it a horrible idea, I don't know; but you [i]can[/i]). Keeping straight how to write paths that both of them will like gets tedious sometimes though.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ubersoldat said:
    Great, mix up an old Linux installation with Windows 8

    BTW, what's up with this? Did I miss anything today?

    Microsoft's making a bunch of noise about how the GUI in Windows Server 8 is optional and all-but-deprecated. (See the second slide here, where it says "for system admins the message is clear: get used to working in PowerShell." But sources vary on how deprecated, so...

    The real question to me is, why would Microsoft take the ONE thing that really differentiates their server OS from the competition and discourage its use? Yeah, I know they have a lot of big corporate installations clamoring for a fully scriptable OS, but:
    1) Windows Server 2008 is already full scriptable
    2) "fully scriptable" and "installs a GUI" are not mutually-exclusive anyway

    Either you or I are misunderstanding what they were saying with Windows Server 8. With the current windows server they have a GUI-less mode, that no one uses, because most applications (even server apps) still require a GUI context in some form (bad coding). What Windows Server 8 supposedly has is a remote-only GUI, so that the physical box has no GUI (because in 99% of the cases it's not used) but instead you can still remote in and get a GUI.

    That's what I understand from the keynote at least.



  • @KallDrexx said:

    What Windows Server 8 supposedly has is a remote-only GUI, so that the physical box has no GUI (because in 99% of the cases it's not used) but instead you can still remote in and get a GUI.

    Well, I get it. I just don't get the point of it, I guess. What harm is there in being able to log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it? Why would you remove/disable-by-default that?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @KallDrexx said:
    What Windows Server 8 supposedly has is a remote-only GUI, so that the physical box has no GUI (because in 99% of the cases it's not used) but instead you can still remote in and get a GUI.

    Well, I get it. I just don't get the point of it, I guess. What harm is there in being able to log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it? Why would you remove/disable-by-default that?

    Is all local display capability off, or just the normal GUI interface?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @KallDrexx said:
    What Windows Server 8 supposedly has is a remote-only GUI, so that the physical box has no GUI (because in 99% of the cases it's not used) but instead you can still remote in and get a GUI.

    Well, I get it. I just don't get the point of it, I guess. What harm is there in being able to log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it? Why would you remove/disable-by-default that?

     First there is a difference between not being able to "log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it" and having a GUI... A GUI is HEAVY, and lean is the way to go..

     Second, about the only time it makes sense to plug in a keyboard or look at a monitor on a server is when it is in such bad shape that you can not even log in.

     If you are in a scenario where you have a "lone box" and want it to be a server, it is a trivial matter to have a light weight VM that can act as the "management console". However if you consider the number of servers running in the world, and the percentage where this applies, it is quite tiny.

    Clarification: "instead you can still remote in and get a GUI" is not correct. You run a GUI on another box, that communicates with the server.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    First there is a difference between not being able to "log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it" and having a GUI... A GUI is HEAVY, and lean is the way to go..

    If by "HEAVY" you mean "maybe, maybe, 1% of server capacity, assuming it's not swapped-out which it is most of the time".

    Just a PROTIP here: when I'm talking about stuff, I'm talking about stuff in reality, not some strange parallel universe where GUIs are "HEAVY" and people all wear goatees. I don't want Microsoft solving problems that only affect weird parallel universes, I want them solving problems here in our own reality.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:
    First there is a difference between not being able to "log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it" and having a GUI... A GUI is HEAVY, and lean is the way to go..

    If by "HEAVY" you mean "maybe, maybe, 1% of server capacity, assuming it's not swapped-out which it is most of the time".

    Just a PROTIP here: when I'm talking about stuff, I'm talking about stuff in reality, not some strange parallel universe where GUIs are "HEAVY" and people all wear goatees. I don't want Microsoft solving problems that only affect weird parallel universes, I want them solving problems here in our own reality.

    Why you'd remove the GUI has already been answered.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why you'd remove the GUI has already been answered.

    It kind of has.

    But I really love making fun of the delusional people that our industry has so many of.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Is all local display capability off, or just the normal graphical GUI interface?

    FTFY.



  • @derula said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Is all local display capability off, or just the normal graphical GUI user interface?

    FTFY.


    FTFM



  • @boomzilla said:

    @derula said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Is all local display capability off, or just the normal graphical G Ɩ user丿I interface?

    FTFY.


    FTFM

    FTFY again.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:
    First there is a difference between not being able to "log into a server by plugging a keyboard and monitor into it" and having a GUI... A GUI is HEAVY, and lean is the way to go..

    If by "HEAVY" you mean "maybe, maybe, 1% of server capacity, assuming it's not swapped-out which it is most of the time".

    Just a PROTIP here: when I'm talking about stuff, I'm talking about stuff in reality, not some strange parallel universe where GUIs are "HEAVY" and people all wear goatees. I don't want Microsoft solving problems that only affect weird parallel universes, I want them solving problems here in our own reality.

     From actual measurements on quad processor machines running Window Server 2008 R2 64 Bit DataCenter at a financial client:

         Dragging a Window on the Screen 3.5% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Opening Server Manager 65% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running Resource Manger 23% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running TaskManager (processes tab display) 9.3% drop in processing rate.

    And those were not even the "heavy" elements I was referring to. Think that every point of access to a machine is a security risk, GUI's tend to be rather large in size (number of bytes of code), meaning that there is additional exposure [look at how many of the buffer over-run security issues were in programs that had a GUI over the past decade]. Validating all of this code, applying additional hotfixes/updates that are specific to GUI components, all take both computer time and human time.

    As the owner of a New York City based consulting firm for the past 27 years, I can assure you that although many people do think Manhattan is a strange parallel universe, all of the items I post are firmly based in first hand experiences with real clients in many different market segments. It takes about 3 seconds with Google to find that "TheCPUWizard" is a tradmark I have been using since before the founding of my company, and there are thousands of hits that contain both my real name, and my company name....I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    From actual measurements on quad processor machines running Window Server 2008 R2 64 Bit DataCenter at a financial client:

         Dragging a Window on the Screen 3.5% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Opening Server Manager 65% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running Resource Manger 23% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running TaskManager (processes tab display) 9.3% drop in processing rate.

    Why the fuck are you doing any of that stuff while the server is processing data? Plus I think you're full of shit.

    What are those numbers assuming a NORMAL server where there's no user logged in while it's doing actual work? Because those are the only numbers that matter.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    As the owner of a New York City based consulting firm for the past 27 years, I can assure you that although many people do think Manhattan is a strange parallel universe, all of the items I post are firmly based in first hand experiences with real clients in many different market segments. It takes about 3 seconds with Google to find that "TheCPUWizard" is a tradmark I have been using since before the founding of my company, and there are thousands of hits that contain both my real name, and my company name....I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    Now I think you're full of shit AND an egotistical ass. Plus from my experience, people who have been in the industry 27 years don't know shit about modern computers. Especially egotistical asses who have been in the industry 27 years.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why the *** are you doing any of that stuff while the server is processing data? Plus I think you're full of shit.

    What are those numbers assuming a NORMAL server where there's no user logged in while it's doing actual work? Because those are the only numbers that matter.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    As the owner of a New York City based consulting firm for the past 27 years, I can assure you that although many people do think Manhattan is a strange parallel universe, all of the items I post are firmly based in first hand experiences with real clients in many different market segments. It takes about 3 seconds with Google to find that "TheCPUWizard" is a tradmark I have been using since before the founding of my company, and there are thousands of hits that contain both my real name, and my company name....I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    Now I think you're full of shit AND an egotistical ass. Plus from my experience, people who have been in the industry 27 years don't know shit about modern computers. Especially egotistical asses who have been in the industry 27 years.

     Ahh, when one doesn't like numerical facts, they resort to insults [in fact, slander and libel]. The raw numbers would require the signing of an NDA and would have to be viewed in person, but for anyone who is willing it can be arranged. These were on a "normal" server in a data center. I as called in because they were experiencing random drops in performance on the servers with the interesting twist that it only seemed to be one server in the farm at a time, and would move from server to server staying on one machine only for a few minutes. The culprit was an operator "monitoring" the systems via an IP KVM instead of properly using remote management tools.

    Just out of curiousity how much time have you spent with the (not scheduled to be released until Q3 2012) Intel Kiefer v2 chips? I have been working with the for nearly 18 months looking at potential issues with the new cache management. I would think that qualifies as "modern computers".

    Additionally, if were to read instead of rant, you would see that I have been in the field professionally for 36 years [after 4 years as a hobbiest/student] and formed my company 9 years after that.

    As far as Ego, perhaps, but I regularly work in the company of people who I respect for knowledge that far surpases my own, and none of them have ever made any such statement about me. Perhaps you have a "magic hat", since (to the best of my knowledge) we have never met [althoguh with the number of public event I attend and present at, it is possible we have met without realizing it]



  • My machine crashed just as I hit post... I am not sure why the reply has appeared so many times, but apparently the window to delete the posting has already expired, I have requested that the duplicates be removed. [mod - posts now removed - PJH]

    Interesting that this is the second time (running Windows 8) that a post has caused a short period of 99% network utilization, and then the machine went dark [no BSOD]...seems I will be looking through core dumps this weekend...

    Again apologies for the previous information being posted multiple times.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    Ahh, when one doesn't like numerical facts, they resort to insults [in fact, slander and libel].

    Now I know you're an egotistical ass. You've confirmed it.

    Only asses bring up slander/libel on a good natured debating forum.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    The culprit was an operator "monitoring" the systems via an IP KVM instead of properly using remote management tools.

    Did you eliminate the KVM's undoubtedly shitty-ass driver as a factor?

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    Just out of curiousity how much time have you spent with the (not scheduled to be released until Q3 2012) Intel Kiefer v2 chips?

    Roughly... zero minutes.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    I have been working with the for nearly 18 months looking at potential issues with the new cache management.

    Well I'm sure "the" appreciates it.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    Additionally, if were to read instead of rant,

    Unlikely.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    you would see that I have been in the field professionally for 36 years [after 4 years as a hobbiest/student] and formed my company 9 years after that.

    I'm actually well-aware of that because, hey grandpa, you QUADRUPLE-posted this thing. I've seen it in my email 4 times and, assuming it was a quirk in CS I came here and lo and behold, 4 more times.

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    As far as Ego, perhaps,

    Let's take a look at the evidence:

    ) Mentioned that you lived in New York, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion

    ) Mentioned that you founded your own company, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion

    ) Mentioned your 47.5 decades of experience, even though... you get the picture

    ) Talked about slander/libel

    ) Told me you couldn't give me non-ass-pull numbers because I'd need to sign an NDA (seriously?)

    ) Name-dropped an upcoming technology as if it was somehow relevant to this discussion and also if I gave a flying fuck, which for the record, I do not

    Look, every time you talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue, you make me think, "why would he bring that up, unless he can't back-up his retarded insights and is covering that by filling the thread with bullshit?" Because, seriously... even if I believed your numbers, which I do not, they are still fucking irrelevant since nobody, nobody, in this thread has made the claim that you should remote into a server and dink around in the UI when it's actually doing work. Because obviously!

    The fact that you had to actually measure this and write a report for something so fucking obvious actually tells us a lot about your communication skills. You couldn't have made that argument heuristically? Seriously? Did you email off the report 4 times because you couldn't figure out that super-complicated "send" button?

    So while you might have 47.5 decades of experience, you sure as fuck aren't very good at talking to trolls on forums, and isn't that really the skill that matters?



  • Lets see...

     1) An IP KVM connected to the normal keyboard/mouse inputs does not involve any driver. As far as the computer is concerned the person is local.

     2) You quoted "1%" I provided specific percentages measured on an actual system [HP ProLiant DL580 G5, 4 processors / 16 cores / 16 threads, Quad-Core Intel <font style="color: blue !important; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Sans-serif, Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 400; position: static;" color="blue">Xeon</font> Processor X7350 2.93 GHz, 64 KB L1 cache per core and 4 MB L2 cache per 2 cores] of operations that are typical of an operator at a console.

     3) Given that I stated it was a financial datacenter, and that my client list is (largely) public knowledge, quoting actual transactions per second would mean distributing confidential information that provided competitive knowledge about the companies capabilities. It is quite easy for anyone to replicate these numbers (assuming access to hardware of similar capabilities)

     4) This entire thread has been about the deprecation of a GUI on Windows 8 Server. Other people also provided reasons for removal, so adding quantified effects is relevant.

     5) It was not "obvious" to the client why their servers were behaving in such a fashion. If it was, then they would not have contracted with my firm to diagnose the problem. It is only natural that they would expect detailed measurements and a report, so I do not see what that has to do with my communication skills.

    6) I have already been in contact with some associates on the Windows 8 team about the network issue I have been having [as I previously posted that is what cause the repitition of my replies]. It seems that there is a problem with the current bits when you have a machine with dual network connections (multi-homed machine) and a sufficiently fast set of connections [this applies to the Client/Desktop bits and according to them does not apply to server...so if you are on a machine with dual 1GB interfaces and a broadband connection, be careful]

    7) And by the way, Of course I enjoy feeding trolls - why else would I be responding to you?

    <font color="#ff0000" size="2" face="Consolas"><font color="#ff0000" size="2" face="Consolas"><font color="#ff0000" size="2" face="Consolas"></font></font></font>



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Look, every time you talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue, you make me think, "why would he bring that up, unless he can't back-up his retarded insights and is covering that by filling the thread with bullshit?" Because, seriously... even if I believed your numbers, which I do not, they are still fucking irrelevant since nobody, nobody, in this thread has made the claim that you should remote into a server and dink around in the UI when it's actually doing work. Because obviously!

    Come on. You must know that this whole paragraph is bullshit. No doubt we could find all shorts of stuff you've complained about where people could say, "There's no way anyone should actually do that!" And you'd reply to the effect that it might be true, but that it was still a WTF or whatever. You were asking why anyone would want to do this stuff, and someone posted about some actual experience (allegedly...hey, it's still the internet). It contradicts your previous rant, so it must become the target of a new rant.

    You don't need to admit it, but you're obviously wrong and arguing to hear yourself type.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Look, every time you talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue, you make me think, "why would he bring that up, unless he can't back-up his retarded insights and is covering that by filling the thread with bullshit?" Because, seriously... even if I believed your numbers, which I do not, they are still fucking irrelevant since nobody, nobody, in this thread has made the claim that you should remote into a server and dink around in the UI when it's actually doing work. Because obviously!

    Come on. You must know that this whole paragraph is bullshit. No doubt we could find all shorts of stuff you've complained about where people could say, "There's no way anyone should actually do that!" And you'd reply to the effect that it might be true, but that it was still a WTF or whatever. You were asking why anyone would want to do this stuff, and someone posted about some actual experience (allegedly...hey, it's still the internet). It contradicts your previous rant, so it must become the target of a new rant.

    You don't need to admit it, but you're obviously wrong and arguing to hear yourself type.

    This^^


  • @blakeyrat said:


    Let's take a look at the evidence:

    ) Mentioned that you lived in New York, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion

    ) Mentioned that you founded your own company, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion

    ) Mentioned your 47.5 decades of experience, even though... you get the picture

    ) Talked about slander/libel

    ) Told me you couldn't give me non-ass-pull numbers because I'd need to sign an NDA (seriously?)

    ) Name-dropped an upcoming technology as if it was somehow relevant to this discussion and also if I gave a flying fuck, which for the record, I do not

    Look, every time you talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue, you make me think, "why would he bring that up, unless he can't back-up his retarded insights and is covering that by filling the thread with bullshit?" Because, seriously... even if I believed your numbers, which I do not, they are still fucking irrelevant since nobody, nobody, in this thread has made the claim that you should remote into a server and dink around in the UI when it's actually doing work. Because obviously!




     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    From actual measurements on quad processor machines running Window Server 2008 R2 64 Bit DataCenter at a financial client:

         Dragging a Window on the Screen 3.5% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Opening Server Manager 65% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running Resource Manger 23% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running TaskManager (processes tab display) 9.3% drop in processing rate.

    Why the fuck are you doing any of that stuff while the server is processing data? Plus I think you're full of shit.

    What are those numbers assuming a NORMAL server where there's no user logged in while it's doing actual work? Because those are the only numbers that matter.

    Now I've got to ask… when would you expect a production server to not be doing actual work?



  • @disillusionist said:

    Now I've got to ask… when would you expect a production server to not be doing actual work?

    When you're setting it up, or patching it. Pretty much the only times it ever needs an interactive login.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    From actual measurements on quad processor machines running Window Server 2008 R2 64 Bit DataCenter at a financial client:

         Dragging a Window on the Screen 3.5% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Opening Server Manager 65% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running Resource Manger 23% drop in transaction processing rate.
         Running TaskManager (processes tab display) 9.3% drop in processing rate.

    Why the fuck are you doing any of that stuff while the server is processing data? Plus I think you're full of shit.

    I can vouche for his numbers. It's not like running these kinds of benchmarks are difficult.  While the numbers I got from my benchmarks were not identical to his, they were still fairly close, despite the fact I was using different hardware, and a different workload. The only requirement to get those numbers is the CPU must be basically pegged by the normal workload - if the system has enough idle CPU cycles, it can do any of those activities without degrading performance. In my case, the system was a uni-processor, dual core machine, and the workload was designed specifically to use both cores, but only load the CPU to 100%, not over, to minimize scheduling overhead.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What are those numbers assuming a NORMAL server where there's no user logged in while it's doing actual work? Because those are the only numbers that matter.

    Not doing any of that shit: 0% drop in transaction processing rate. HTH. HAND.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:
    As the owner of a New York City based consulting firm for the past 27 years, I can assure you that although many people do think Manhattan is a strange parallel universe, all of the items I post are firmly based in first hand experiences with real clients in many different market segments. It takes about 3 seconds with Google to find that "TheCPUWizard" is a tradmark I have been using since before the founding of my company, and there are thousands of hits that contain both my real name, and my company name....I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    Now I think you're full of shit AND an egotistical ass. Plus from my experience, people who have been in the industry 27 years don't know shit about modern computers. Especially egotistical asses who have been in the industry 27 years.

    Yet, oddly enough, many of the people in charge of making modern computers have been in the industry for over 27 years.

    In my experience, people who don't understand simple logic, and claim people who do are aspies, do not knowcannot comprehend nearly as much about computers as they think they do.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The fact that you had to actually measure this and write a report for something so fucking obvious actually tells us a lot about your communication skills. You couldn't have made that argument heuristically?

    While we've all already learned this already, this says more about your communication skills than it does his. Obviously, any success you've ever had communicating anything unexpected to non-technical management has been pure luck.

    We're talking about people who think that computers just do things.  Moving the cursor around? That's free, right?

    Most of the companies where I've worked have upper managment types who have forgotten that Windows takes any time to boot, because they have an administrative assistant that powers their computer on in the morning before they get to work. That assistant opens Excel, Word, Outlook, and any other program they typically need during the day, so they've forgotten that those programs take time to load, also. Also, they have a quad core, dual processor computer for their desktop, despite the fact they don't really run any CPU-intensive applications (besides Windows itself), so they're really protected from seeing any computer delays at all. So, yeah, they're going to want to see hard numbers.

    @blakeyrat said:

    So while you might have 47.5 decades of experience, you sure as fuck aren't very good at talking to trolls on forums, and isn't that really the skill that matters?

    Actually, he's as good at that as you are. He just hasn't done it as much. Probably because he actually sometimes has worthwhile things to do.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @disillusionist said:
    Now I've got to ask… when would you expect a production server to not be doing actual work?

    When you're setting it up, or patching it. Pretty much the only times it ever needs an interactive login.

    A fair point, but (hopefully) maintenance tasks that require taking the server offline are going to be rare. If a GUI is really necessary for these tasks, it seems to me it makes sense to have it loaded only on demand, and not memory-resident the rest of the time. Is Windows Server 8 going to support that, or is it all-or-nothing?

    I'm not convinced that a GUI "sitting at a login screen" is the same thing as "not memory-resident". It's using some level of resources, however negligible. And more importantly, it's a huge potential source of security holes. I'm uncomfortable knowing there's any code running on a server providing functionality that isn't (and shouldn't be) used during normal operation.



  • @disillusionist said:

    A fair point, but (hopefully) maintenance tasks that require taking the server offline are going to be rare. If a GUI is really necessary for these tasks, it seems to me it makes sense to have it loaded only on demand, and not memory-resident the rest of the time. Is Windows Server 8 going to support that, or is it all-or-nothing?

    Windows Server 2008 supports that now. As did 2003, as did 2000, as does the fucking home version of Windows 7. Just log off, and if enough other stuff is demanding memory, the GUI'll be completely swapped-out. So this isn't a feature that needs to be added. As I'm so fond of saying about Window on this board, this isn't new.

    @disillusionist said:

    I'm not convinced that a GUI "sitting at a login screen" is the same thing as "not memory-resident". It's using some level of resources, however negligible.

    Well der.

    @disillusionist said:

    And more importantly, it's a huge potential source of security holes.

    How do you figure? I'll grant "potential", but not "huge".


Log in to reply
 

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