Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Oct 2006 20:58 UTC, submitted by BluenoseJake
Windows One of the most innovative features coming in Windows Longhorn Server isn't really a feature as much as a whole new version of Windows. It's called Server Core, and it will only take one-sixth of the disk space of a normal Longhorn installation. It's not expected to need anywhere near as many patches and hotfixes as Windows 2000. It's a version of Windows that does not, in fact, use windows. It's breaking Microsoft's long-standing reliance on graphical interfaces and shaking things up in several of Microsoft's product groups.
Order by: Score:
Lets hope
by flanque on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:07 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

Lets hope that it can live up to the claim of needing less patches... for the sake of everyone.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lets hope
by CPUGuy on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "Lets hope"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

2003 has had a VERY good track record.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lets hope
by flanque on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Um.. except we patch it all the time..

Reply Score: 4

Back to a blinking cursor...
by tpaws on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:19 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02

Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David Lightman: Oh!
Jennifer: I think it missed him.
David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it? Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
David Lightman: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Back to a blinking cursor...
by miscz on Fri 6th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "Back to a blinking cursor..."
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

I think DEFCON might not work on Server Core :/
http://www.everybody-dies.com/

Reply Score: 1

moving towards....
by eantoranz on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:37 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

So the people at Microsoft have finally realized that the way to go is the Damn Small Linux way? :-D

But I bet bash will kick this Windows Core shell's ass. ;-)

Reply Score: 5

Long whosis?
by Sphinx on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:43 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

So there is longhorn, (thought it was vista), vista, 2003 and now server core? Maybe I see MS's problem, they lack focus.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Long whosis?
by Legend on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:07 UTC in reply to "Long whosis?"
Legend Member since:
2006-07-27

Now if you think 4 version is lacking focus and a problem , what do you think about Linux, seriously? I hope you don't expect the kernel developers to think about every single distribution that exists?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Long whosis?
by Sphinx on Fri 6th Oct 2006 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Long whosis?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

And how many kernels are there? I see, one.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Long whosis?
by Adam S on Sat 7th Oct 2006 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Long whosis?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Ha! Every distro tweaks their kernel, but all Windows variants (of the same version) share the same kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Long whosis?
by Anonymo on Sat 7th Oct 2006 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Long whosis?"
Anonymo Member since:
2005-07-06

actually all distros have the same kernel. Windows Kernels are different

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Long whosis?
by lucas on Sat 7th Oct 2006 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Long whosis?"
lucas Member since:
2005-07-08

thats the same as saying all current versions of windows have the same kernel because they are all variant of NT. all distros most definately do not use the same kernel. they all have distro specific patches

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Long whosis?
by Adam S on Sat 7th Oct 2006 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Long whosis?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Actually, all distros are BASED on the same kernel, but VERY VERY few of them stock a vanilla kernel. And NO major distros have unmodified kernels.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Long whosis?
by jholt538 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Long whosis?"
jholt538 Member since:
2005-07-18

Well all except for Slackware oh wait I guess being #9 on Distrowatch isn't a major Distro

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Long whosis?
by Wrawrat on Sat 7th Oct 2006 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Long whosis?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Exactly: it means it's the ninth most accessed page on DistroWatch. Nothing else. Even if you consider it as a major distribution (which I find debatable), it's the exception rather than the rule.

Anyway, the debate is quite futile. In both cases, there is a main kernel line. The operating systems based on them are using a branch specifically tuned for its needs... That's why a kernel vulnerability can affect a whole line of OSes based on them (i.e. a Linux vulnerability can affect many distros; same with the NT kernel).

As for the news itself, it looks nice, but it's definitely late in the game. I doubt there is a genuine interest for it... Those who need UNIX-like prompts are probably already using an UNIX-based OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Long whosis?
by kaiwai on Sat 7th Oct 2006 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Long whosis?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Incorrect; some distributions use older kernels, some use newer, some use -pre versions of kernels, whilst others maintain their own collection of patches which they themself maintain.

For example, the realtime code isn't included with the linux kernel by default, same goes for other projects, hence the reason why there are custom patches made available by individual projects for those who wish certain functionality.

All Windows in effect use the same kernel; Windows 2003 (regardless of version) use the same kernel, things are customised, parts added/removed according to what each version provides, but essentially, they're the same thing.

Same goes for Windows XP Pro/Home/MediaCentre/Embedded etc. All use the samer kernel, like Windows 2003, with certain features added (realtime for example in the case of an embedded system).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Long whosis?
by Sphinx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Long whosis?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Forgive me for pointing this out but how does WinCE fit into that picture, my gamepark uses the same linux kernel as my desktop or a sharp zaurus, does an hp jornado?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Long whosis?
by n4cer on Sat 7th Oct 2006 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Long whosis?"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Forgive me for pointing this out but how does WinCE fit into that picture, my gamepark uses the same linux kernel as my desktop or a sharp zaurus, does an hp jornado?

WinCE is a totally different kernel than NT, built specifically for hard realtime applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Long whosis?
by bytecoder on Sat 7th Oct 2006 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Long whosis?"
bytecoder Member since:
2005-11-27

When did linux become a company trying to sell their product? This whole comparison seems fairly stupid...

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Long whosis?
by Sphinx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Long whosis?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Of course you discovered this by looking at the source?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Long whosis?
by Clinton on Sun 8th Oct 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Long whosis?"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

And yet in spite of it all, Linux is still the better OS and Linux vendors are able to release their offerings far more often that Microsoft.

They must be doing something right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Long whosis?
by CPUGuy on Sat 7th Oct 2006 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Long whosis?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

There is one Windows kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Long whosis?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 7th Oct 2006 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Long whosis?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

No, there is the Windows NT kernel, the Windows 2000 Kernel, the XP Kernel and so on, each updated. They are all based on the NT kernel, but that is like saying that the 2.4 and 2.6 Linux Kernels are exactly the same, or that Debian's and Redhat's are the same

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Long whosis?
by CPUGuy on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Long whosis?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't count newer versions of a kernel as different, what the hell.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Long whosis?
by BluenoseJake on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Long whosis?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Sure you can, is the 2.4 version of the linux kernel the same as the 2.6?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Long whosis?
by CPUGuy on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Long whosis?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

In the sense that was being counted before, you can not count that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Long whosis?
by dylansmrjones on Sat 7th Oct 2006 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Long whosis?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Most companies only have one linux distribution.

The fact there are many linux distributions are irrelevant. Redhat do not need to focus on Gentoo or Mandriva, and Gentoo do not need to focus on Redhat EL.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Long whosis?
by REM2000 on Sat 7th Oct 2006 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Long whosis?"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

Like ubuntu who have client 6.06 (powerpc, x64, i386), server 6.06 lts, kbuntu etc.. Yes some like gentoo have one.

But really what is the problem with having more versions of windows server / linux. The people who install this software are not end users, people who need windows/linux server products are IT administrator's who know what they are doing, if we can install and configure network systems im sure we will be able to figure out if we need server core, win2k3 std or longhorn server. Multiple versions bring more choice.

I think that server core is an excellent idea, i can see data centers using this where all you need is basic funcationaility to get the systems going. From a personal view it's something ive always admired about linux, when setting up SUSE as a server it's nice to completley dump the desktop managers and have a simple CLI. It's nice to grab all of the resources for the servers task at hand instead of losing a bit or memory / cpu cycles to the GUI.

The other benefit as stated in the report is the fact this reduces the surface area of attack, excellent. I won't say that i completely hate UI's as they are useful for other tasks.

All OS's require patches, i patch my SUSE boxes, Windows boxes and Mac clients, it something you do with software. Ive never really had a problem with the patching situation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Long whosis?
by CPUGuy on Sat 7th Oct 2006 03:59 UTC in reply to "Long whosis?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

There is Vista (the desktop/workstation OS), Longhorn (Which is the code-name for the next server release).

2003 is what Longhorn is replacing, and server core is part of Longhorn.

Reply Score: 3

Well...
by madcap on Fri 6th Oct 2006 22:51 UTC
madcap
Member since:
2005-12-31

"There's no Internet Explorer, no Outlook Express, Calculator or Windows Paint, no Wordpad, Windows Messenger or Media Player -- just the basics."

Should any of these be on their servers they sell? I would hate for someone to be making pictures with Paint on my domain controller.

Edited 2006-10-06 22:51

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well...
by Sphinx on Fri 6th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "Well..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Something wrong with all the NT admins sitting around playing pinball?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Well...
by n4cer on Sat 7th Oct 2006 05:26 UTC in reply to "Well..."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Should any of these be on their servers they sell? I would hate for someone to be making pictures with Paint on my domain controller.

Not all servers are DCs, some are app servers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well...
by w-ber on Sat 7th Oct 2006 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Well..."
w-ber Member since:
2005-08-21

I'm positive running Paint via remote access from a Windows server is the one that will kill Adobe Photoshop installed to individual workstations.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Well...
by Sphinx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Made my morning with that one.

Reply Score: 1

My Educated Guess
by Don T. Bothers on Fri 6th Oct 2006 23:09 UTC
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

I am thinking that this version will not be readily available for everyone. In fact, I will be very surprised if someone will be able to go out and buy it and then install it on his server. Instead, I think this version is going to be used strictly for appliance type systems where someone will work closely with Microsoft to create some sort of solution. Example usage include: IP Telephony call managers, VoiceMail Boxes, SPAM Blockers, AntiVirus Solutions, NAS boxes, print-server boxes, routers, switches, firewalls, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE: My Educated Guess
by elsewhere on Sat 7th Oct 2006 01:03 UTC in reply to "My Educated Guess"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I am thinking that this version will not be readily available for everyone. In fact, I will be very surprised if someone will be able to go out and buy it and then install it on his server. Instead, I think this version is going to be used strictly for appliance type systems where someone will work closely with Microsoft to create some sort of solution. Example usage include: IP Telephony call managers, VoiceMail Boxes, SPAM Blockers, AntiVirus Solutions, NAS boxes, print-server boxes, routers, switches, firewalls, etc.

Maybe, but I doubt that's the primary driver. Or if it is, it's misdirected. Linux is pretty much the defacto standard for appliance solutions, it's the basis for virtually all security appliances. Even Nortel and Avaya migrated their telephony units from NT to linux.

Since linux is on a much more level playing field with Windows when it comes to the server room, the only real advantage MS has in that sort of a generic turnkey appliance type of product is the ability to integrate with an existing MS management infrastructure. But really, for network devices that's not really a concern. You're not pushing policies etc. out. The vendors all provide their own management infrastructure anyways. Ideally the user of an appliance shouldn't even need to know what OS is running.

Along those lines though, where I could see this being an advantage would maybe be turn-key appliance solutions for Windows network services that could replace standard servers. Such as print services, domain controllers etc. Depending on the load, you could probably get away with lower resources without worrying about saturating the box, and a properly engineered solution should cost less than a standard-issue server + Win Server license.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see where this goes. I agree with your point that this probably will not be a widely available, general purpose sku for MS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My Educated Guess
by n4cer on Sat 7th Oct 2006 05:35 UTC in reply to "My Educated Guess"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

I am thinking that this version will not be readily available for everyone. In fact, I will be very surprised if someone will be able to go out and buy it and then install it on his server. Instead, I think this version is going to be used strictly for appliance type systems where someone will work closely with Microsoft to create some sort of solution.

Nope. Server Core will be an install option on every server SKU. It'll support a limited number of roles (not limited in how many you can run simultaneously, but limited in the types of roles supported by the Core install vs the full install), and scale based on the SKU you have (e.g., Enterprise supports more CPUs, etc., than Standard).

Reply Score: 2

server os
by PipoDeClown on Fri 6th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

i believe that most *nix installments are server-osses withouth "windows"

and you could accomplish the same thing using nlite (www.nliteos.com) removing printer- and sounddrivers for example

oh wait, microsoft is a marketing company. they are marketing a product, not technology nor innovation

Reply Score: 5

Hmm
by fsckit on Sat 7th Oct 2006 02:17 UTC
fsckit
Member since:
2006-09-24

I wonder if there will be a comment from the smart guy who posted a couple stories back about how glad he was that all us command line nut jobs would be retiring soon? Maybe it's just me but a server with a GUI is really not a server at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm
by twenex on Sat 7th Oct 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh, Well said, sir!

Reply Score: 1

And so much for the GUI superiority?
by DigitalAxis on Sat 7th Oct 2006 02:32 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

The lack of GUI tools has long been criticized as a problem with Linux/UNIX... and yet here we have Microsoft, the paragon of GUI virtue, announcing a system with no GUI?

Either the news item is fake, Microsoft itself doesn't buy the 'unconditional superiority of the GUI' argument that's popular with many of their fans, or this is Microsoft's attempt to win over those cantankerous old fogies who refuse to even look at Microsoft solutions because they have a GUI.

Reply Score: 5

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The lack of GUI tools has long been criticized as a problem with Linux/UNIX... and yet here we have Microsoft, the paragon of GUI virtue, announcing a system with no GUI?

Oh how bloody terrible Microsoft listen to customers, and make the appropriate changes <rolls eyes>

Maybe we'll see the Linux community finally put some damn effort into improving their desktop applications and actually finishing their 'foundation desktop techologies' like HAL and DBUS rather than shunting out pre-beta versions and marking them off as 'complete' or 'suitable for everyday use'.

Reply Score: 3

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Either the news item is fake, Microsoft itself doesn't buy the 'unconditional superiority of the GUI' argument that's popular with many of their fans, or this is Microsoft's attempt to win over those cantankerous old fogies who refuse to even look at Microsoft solutions because they have a GUI.

Have you heard of "headless" systems - computers without any video card, no keyboard and no mouse?

Imagine a datacenter with an air-conditioned server room containing 50 headless rack-mount computers, where the adminstrators administer them over the network (e.g. using SSH/telnet or X).

I'd guess that this would one of the things Microsoft is thinking about...

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

MS is just trying to appeal to both sides of the argument

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The lack of GUI tools has long been criticized as a problem with Linux/UNIX... and yet here we have Microsoft, the paragon of GUI virtue, announcing a system with no GUI?

GUI tools is still very much a criticism of Linux, but there are times and places where you just want to use a command line environment or need to run a bunch of shell scripts. Microsoft have decent GUI tools and are also improving their command line shell environment. I think this should worry a few Linux companies who think that they're untouchable and that Microsoft can't compete with them.

The criticism I have of Linux's command line environments, be it Bash or shell scripting in Ruby or Python, is that although it's powerful it's not altogether well integrated, it's not particularly coherent and the APIs, those that there are, tend not to be straightforward. Monad should be an improvement.

However, Microsoft will find a way to screw this up ;-). I've noticed with Windows R2 that Microsoft is extremely keen on getting you to assign 'roles' to your servers - so one server does one role, another server another and so on. This has the neat side effect that more Windows Servers are required, which they can presumable count in server license statistics(!), and more licensing for you ;-).

Reply Score: 3

natefrogg Member since:
2005-08-16

if licensing is a concern, imo, buy 1 big bad powerful server (or 2 if things are critical), and run all your servers with their various server roles as virtual machines...that way you do not have to worry about getting so many licenses

Reply Score: 1

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

However, Microsoft will find a way to screw this up ;-). I've noticed with Windows R2 that Microsoft is extremely keen on getting you to assign 'roles' to your servers - so one server does one role, another server another and so on. This has the neat side effect that more Windows Servers are required, which they can presumable count in server license statistics(!), and more licensing for you ;-).

The roles concept goes back to Server 2003 RTM. Nothing prevents you from running multiple roles on the same server or configuring the server manually. Roles simply provide an easy way for people to securely configure their servers.

Reply Score: 3

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

The criticism I have of Linux's command line environments, be it Bash or shell scripting in Ruby or Python, is that although it's powerful it's not altogether well integrated, it's not particularly coherent

The coherence should be in your head once it's all in there.

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

My first impression was that MS was attempting to plug a leak in their market share by inventing Netware for the New Millenium!

After wiping out Big Red with the GUI they are now defending against *nix by offering S/core as a more appropriate option by limiting its role to either serving files or providing a [single] network service (DNS server, DHCP server or Domain Controller) all, of course, sans GUI. At least Netware provided print services... (o;

It seems like a pretty smart response to offer a similar product in a market segment where they are currently being, not totally, by any means, but significantly, displaced. Some customers are already running servers like this so having a product for that segment could shift uptake back their way. AND I think enough time has passed that there won't be any backlash/resistance/illwill/whathaveyou over why they are essentially now offering what they once replaced.

Reply Score: 1

interesting
by netpython on Sat 7th Oct 2006 06:08 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Server Core is a server that's just a server, not a full-fledged client as well. "

Do they finally get it?

Reply Score: 4

RE: interesting
by JamesTRexx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 06:55 UTC in reply to "interesting"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

They get the idea, but the implementation still lacks a great deal.
They'll have to write a lot of commandline versions of all the tools found to set up and manage the server. TFA mentions having to use an unattended setup file for installation, the inability to use .NET, the existence of a minimized GUI, etc..
Server Core is a step in the right direction, and we'll be using it at work but I do hope it'll be fully commandline capable by the time it's released to market, starting with a native ssh server component.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: interesting
by elevator on Sat 7th Oct 2006 08:09 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting"
elevator Member since:
2005-06-29

While SSH would be interesting for some things, Microsoft already has a remote control system named RDP. Personally i dont see MS implementing SSH in this version (not for the least because RDP has had less vulns than SSH ;) )

Besides this, Microsoft traditionally has a very rich set of administration tools that work both on the local computer or on another computer - this severely alleviates the need for actually running applications on the server itself and thus makes the 'need' for an SSH-like system less.

For your comment about commandline tools - Windows sure could need some improvement in this regard. OTOH - there are already a lot Windows commandline tools available for which a lot people dont know the existence of ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: interesting
by JamesTRexx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

I know about RDP, we admin our servers that way, but it's still GUI, and it's one of the first things to stop responding if a server overloads.
That's why I want a native SSH as using psexec (sysinternals.com) is just as impossible, it having to copy a file over first and start the psexec service.
I just got reminded on why commandline tools might be a bad thing though, one of the guys at work freaked out after starting nslookup because he only had a ">" for a prompt instead of "C:>". Silly mouseclick generation...

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: interesting
by n4cer on Sat 7th Oct 2006 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

There are several commandline tools (not only included with Server, but also Vista). Three tools you'd probably use most often are WinRM for remote management (WMI), WinRS which is a remote shell, and OCSetup which is used for installing/uninstalling features/roles.

There's also DrvLoad for installing drivers, and existing tools like WMIC, WSH, PowerShell, and (though not commandline tools, you run them on the client instead of the server) MMC snapins. WinRM/WinRS use WS-Management, so you can also substitute other WS-Management based tools.

Reply Score: 2

All for it, but...
by jayson.knight on Sat 7th Oct 2006 06:48 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

Seems like MS is finally catching up with some of the other various server-centric OS's out there (this will be their first truly headless offering for a server OS), but I do have one huge question...

They have "pared" it down to only a gig of disk space. Yes, space is cheap nowadays, but what the hell are they cramming into that gig for what is essentially a CLI only version of Windows? There are minimal drivers, no .Net framework, etc...so what is taking up all that space?

Reply Score: 4

RE: All for it, but...
by Sphinx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:33 UTC in reply to "All for it, but..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

They need to keep paring until it fits on a 32meg compact flash.

Reply Score: 1

malkia
Member since:
2005-07-17

I'm don't know about whether that's the reason, but if you have a single desktop with lots of virtual machines, say Windows Core, each one of them now would be taking well less space (in terms of HDD, and memory), because the GUI is not included.

They could probably use that for hosting, or web services, where instead of one machine, you have many virtualized small machines.

Reply Score: 1

Innovative?
by AdamW on Sat 7th Oct 2006 06:55 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Am I the only one finding the description of this as 'innovative' hilarious?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Innovative?
by twenex on Sat 7th Oct 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "Innovative?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Nope ;-)

Reply Score: 1

IIS
by dnstest on Sat 7th Oct 2006 09:06 UTC
dnstest
Member since:
2006-06-11

If .NET is added in the future, IIS would be a welcome addition. Of course there are probably more complications to adding IIS than I can think of...

Reply Score: 1

Value Added Windows
by pfortuny on Sat 7th Oct 2006 09:49 UTC
pfortuny
Member since:
2006-02-05

(Value Added Windows). What will the price be? I guess they might as well sell it like this:

"Look, this Windows Server Core is more expensive than Windows Longhorn Server even though it implements a Windowless Windows Server. We also call it Value Added Windows: you get all the benefits of Windows without the Windows. No more Blue Screens of Death (just plain old black 'core dumped's).

It has taken us YEARS to discover this concept, and that is why we must charge you a plus (I mean, ANOTHER plus)... But you SEE all the benefits, do you not?"

By the way, the installation could also go like this:

Installing windows server core... Please install first Windows Longhorn Server and use the key you have received to install the GUI uninstaller.

Reply Score: 3

Server Core is PART of Server "Longhorn"
by Marcellus on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "Value Added Windows"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/longhorn/evaluation/overview...


Server Core: Beginning with the Beta 2 release of Windows Server "Longhorn," administrators can choose to install Windows Server with only the services required to perform the DHCP, DNS, file server, or domain controller roles. This new installation option will not install non-essential services and applications and will provide base server functionality without any extra overhead.


Based on available information, Server Core is a PART of Windows Server "Longhorn"... NOT a separate product.

FTA: Server Core will come in Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter editions for i386 and x64 platforms.

Bad writing from the article author... Server Core will come WITH Windows Server "Longhorn" Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter editions.

Cut down versions of Windows Server that ONLY include the Server Core parts may come as well in the future, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Reply Score: 3

Clustered servers
by Southern.Pride on Sat 7th Oct 2006 07:43 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

Will MS produce a non-Windows version for clustered computer without the Gui?

This would seem to fall in line with this concept they are trying to apply.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Clustered servers
by twenex on Sat 7th Oct 2006 23:18 UTC in reply to "Clustered servers"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

As my sig used to say, "Windows for Clusters: Distributed Crashing".

Reply Score: 1

toot
by Weeman on Sat 7th Oct 2006 07:49 UTC
Weeman
Member since:
2006-03-20

What's this talk about no GUI? The damn thing runs in graphical mode showing a cmd.exe window. Call me if it really runs not in GUI mode.

Reply Score: 3

RE: toot
by Sphinx on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:30 UTC in reply to "toot"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

And built on a blade headless.

Reply Score: 1

RE: toot
by dsmogor on Sat 7th Oct 2006 16:21 UTC in reply to "toot"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The VGA text mode based virtual consoles are actually a preety big liability in the Linux kernel and now and again voices are brought up in sopport of depercating them and swithing to framebuffer only.

Reply Score: 1

Virtualization
by aGNUstic on Sat 7th Oct 2006 14:16 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

Actually I see where they are going with this.
Virtualization.

The more copies of this they can cram onto a single server the more they can charge per copy.

Now thet Billy Boy doesn't have his obnoxoious foot up MicroSilly big ass they may come out with more innovation. Maybe not. They are a marketing company first and foremost.

Reply Score: 2

Still as unroadworthy as ever!
by Zipper on Sat 7th Oct 2006 15:20 UTC
Zipper
Member since:
2006-10-07

A car with a twisted chassis still isn't road-worthy!

Reply Score: 2

it's a good thing
by natefrogg on Sat 7th Oct 2006 16:02 UTC
natefrogg
Member since:
2005-08-16

this is great!

i've wanted a basic windows server os with a very minimal install

for people that have to support servers running windows software that doesn't require .net this is a good thing

i'm looking forward to trying this one out

hmm..i wonder if it'd be possible to get video and sound drivers working, get directx working, and install/run a game

a "windows game os" that's minimal somewhat like this would be very nice as well

Reply Score: 1

RE: it's a good thing
by n4cer on Sat 7th Oct 2006 16:35 UTC in reply to "it's a good thing"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

hmm..i wonder if it'd be possible to get video and sound drivers working, get directx working, and install/run a game

To do that you would go beyond the Core installation. The client (vista) is more optimized for games anyway.

Reply Score: 3

noamsml
Member since:
2005-07-09

First of all, let me congradulate Redmond for the good work in finally creating a lean server Windows OS.

Still, one question remains to be asked: How will Windows zealots respond now that even Microsoft admits that the "everything for everyone" paradigm doesn't stand to the test in the server room? Will they, life redmondmag.com, begin believing that "small is the new large", showing how Microsoft is advancing and innovating, despite the fact leanness already existed in the *Nix world pretty much the beginning; or will they shun it, continuing to stick to the server room GUI?

Reply Score: 2

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

How will Windows zealots respond now that even Microsoft admits that the "everything for everyone" paradigm doesn't stand to the test in the server room?

By using Windows even more. And ignoring OSS zealots who now claim choice is a bad thing.

Leanness isn't that important for most of us. Most Windows 2003 installs can run in 4GB of disk space with no problem. Since its difficult to buy new SCSI drives in anything but 36GB or larger, dropping the minimum install to 1GB will most be helpful in Virtual Machines.

And since for performance and reduncy sakes its best to run VM's on their own drive, who cares if Windows takes 1/36th of a drive or 1/9th?

OTOH, choice is nice. This is just another nail in Linux's coffin.

Reply Score: 0

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

4GB! And you call that minimal?! Hah.

OTOH, choice is nice. This is just another nail in Linux's coffin.

In your dreams, pal, in your dreams. Why do I get the feeling you'll still be running Windows long after Bill Gates has given it up for dead?

Reply Score: 3

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

4GB! And you call that minimal?! Hah.

1/9th of the smallest hard drive you can buy is pretty minimal.

Of course most drives we are buying these days are 73GB or 146GB SCSI or 300GB SATA II, the percentages decline even further.

Did you notice that in 2000 Linux in the server space was growing at 132% ... then 63 ... then 40 ... then 20 ... now its at 6%?

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It's not minimal when other OSes do more with less.

As for the statistic you quoted, one could hardly fail to notice it since you've been quoting it since the dawn of time. One also does not fail to notice that it has nothing to do with what you claim it has to do with. And even at 6%, the percentage growth in Linux server sales is twice that of Windows. Which says nothing about any Linux installs done without buying it.

Edited 2006-10-07 23:21

Reply Score: 4

oops, forgot something?
by MikeekiM on Sat 7th Oct 2006 18:27 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

If it can't run Dot Net it Dead.

and where's bash?

Reply Score: 1

Sorry, I'm wrong.
by MikeekiM on Sat 7th Oct 2006 18:30 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

This would be perfect for some shops:
ServerCore - tomcat - postgresdb/OracleDB.

but,
freeBsd - tomcat - postgresdb
linux - tomcat - postgresdb
OpenSolaris( DTrace ) - tomcat - postgresdb
would still be better, because they've got bash.

Reply Score: 1

Sql? Exchange? IIS?
by griffinme on Mon 9th Oct 2006 14:56 UTC
griffinme
Member since:
2005-11-09

MS SQL, Exchange, and IIS would be the three things that would benefit from this since they already have good remote control with mmc's yet they receive almost no mention. >:-(

Until these are supported it is a waste of time.

Reply Score: 1