Forum Discussion
Is Window Server going towards a GUI less OS?
HotCakeXUnfortunately Microsoft has apparently failed to have anyone on their team that have been around for more than a decade. Apple hit it out of the park and took the world by storm and became a worldwide name for doing what? Making a GUI interface that everyone could use. However it is interesting to hear the comments of, but resources for a GUI interface. Last I checked computing power is exponentially better than when the GUI interface was created. Then I hear comments, but some nerd in a closed calls it a Toy OS cause it is easy to use. Great idea to make an OS based on someones EGO that someone else could do their job easier, really? The idea that a GUI makes something more security vulnerable? How, last I checked, with the exception of hacking the user, its harder to hack something with a GUI, there is no command line I can remotely run, and what the GUI does behind the scenes can be kept hidden....
Lets face it, 1) Microsoft is trying to compete with UNIX, however UNIX is free, so why if a company had the resources of IT professionals that have deep expertise with command line, would someone choose to go with Microsoft. 2) Microsoft is really trying to make it more difficult so that all businesses stop providing their own services and move it to the cloud with Microsoft where their data can be looted and held hostage by Microsoft. The data is what matters, and Microsoft wants to charge you per month, not once for a piece of software. Why would MS want to make a thousand dollars when they can make tens of thousands over years.
I am an IT expert and a programmer, and have been in this industry too long, but have the belief that when I want to make a small change to a system, I don't want to Google a powershell command, I want to see what my options are and check a box. Exchange 2003 was easy to make basic changes too, for example, yet on newer MS Email servers I have to figure out the terminology that will help me find a command I am looking for to do simple changes. Now take a small business that can't afford an IT guy, how can they setup a quick and easy file and email server? They used to be able to, now if they want ease of use they have to give their intellectual property to Microsoft.
If Microsoft thinks going from a GUI to a Command Prompt is the right direction, how out next we go from a Command Prompt to a COMPILER. Then you have way more flexibility and options than you would with a Command Prompt!
Yes i know, but I wasn't talking about "the moment". the nature of my post is about the future and what Microsoft plans moving forward. of course I know what is available "for the moment".
"You're comparing apples with oranges. Yes, Windows on the Desktop has unarguably the biggest market share. But if you look on the server side, things look vastly different. Almost every web page runs on Linux. Most developer tools (building and test automation, code repositorys, and so one) run on Linux. Even Azure has more Linux servers running that Windows servers. And one personal experience: we are running 35 Windows Servers and 380 Linux servers in our company."
I'mt not comparing apples to oranges. it was an example to show how important GUI is.
by the way, you're talking about it proudly as if it's a good thing that Microsoft Windows servers are falling behind Linux servers. Microsoft should start working on balancing servers market share.
"And that's why they didn't remove the GUI from Server 2019. That's like complaining that the grapefruit you bought is sour and it should be sweet like an orange, while refusing to just buy an orange."
again irrelevant. sorry but you confused it.
"No, it's just another focus with the added benefit of more security because of less code that could be compromised."
well that's your opinion. there Are ways to secure the GUI. it doesn't fit in the context of this topic but you can search for it on the Internet.
one way out of thousands would be to open source some parts of the OS, like the GUI.
"No, that's your expectation, but not the truth."
Nope, the truth is Microsoft is the leading tech giant and they have the power, means, and technology to safeguard their own OS.
No, I don't. If you want the Desktop experience, then the semi-annual channel is not for you and Microsoft offers you the LTSC edition. Instead of using this, you're complaining that a product that isn't even targeted at your audience doesn't have something that you want.
> well that's your opinion. there Are ways to secure the GUI. it doesn't fit in the context of this topic but you can search for it on the Internet.
That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Backed by this statement: "By focusing on the Server Core installation option, we're able to dedicate more resources toward those new innovations" (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started-19/servicing-channels-19#why-do-semi-annual-channel-releases-offer-only-the-server-core-installation-option) And that less code means a smaller attack surface is a logic conclusion.
> there Are ways to secure the GUI
That statement is so absurd, I don't even know how to respond to this.
"No, I don't. If you want the Desktop experience, then the semi-annual channel is not for you and Microsoft offers you the LTSC edition. Instead of using this, you're complaining that a product that isn't even targeted at your audience doesn't have something that you want."
I'm gonna the same terminology you used "Absurd" that's why I'm not going to respond to this.
"That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Backed by this statement: "By focusing on the Server Core installation option, we're able to dedicate more resources toward those new innovations""
there are not huge differences in semi-annual releases so there won't be much difference in GUI and keeping it updated won't be too hard for them.
"That statement is so absurd, I don't even know how to respond to this."
it's alright, you don't have to.