That is really something, before as a dev coming from linux when I first was about to login on a Windows Server I didn't understand how to do it since it were no SSH. Administrating the server via a GUI always felt backwards somehow. Why waste CPU cycles on rendering a UI when the CLI is so great (on linux)?
There were multiple ways to get non-GUI shells on remote machines before too. WinRm/WinRs and PowerShell are included out of the box.
Winrm stopped being usable if the machine was overly remote.
Now all they have to do is switch their kernel to linux, their gui to kde and get their office suite to LibreOffice, and Windows will be the perfect computer.
Windows ux is better out of the box than on any Linux so far, it's really polished. The office suite is also much better than alternatives. So just switching the kernel to Linux would be enough and super winrar.
I disagree, I find both Gnome 2 and 3 vastly superior to Windows UX
That is really something, before as a dev coming from linux when I first was about to login on a Windows Server I didn't understand how to do it since it were no SSH. Administrating the server via a GUI always felt backwards somehow. Why waste CPU cycles on rendering a UI when the CLI is so great (on linux)?
Microsoft has come a really long way recently towards moving to CLI-based management. Starting with Server 2016, the default installation method of Windows Server no longer includes most of the GUI (called the Desktop Experience), leaving you with a command prompt window in the middle of the screen instead. An even thinner version of Windows Server, Nano Server, is also available, and includes even less GUI, being mu…
They started on this in the late 2000s when I was an intern there. But there was a lot to untangle. It’s the biggest refactoring job you can imagine. A decade long effort.
Back then they didn’t really understand the point of ssh though. They had a vision of remote management via .net RPC and powershell.
Primary issue with this would be driver support. Also there is value in the NT kernal itself in my opinion.
Because? What advantages does it offer?
Read Windows Internals. It's a very different design from Linux. Worth learning about another approach to operating systems if you're at all interested.
WNT evolved (spiritually) from VMS and has a lot of unique things in its structure.
Note also that Windows already kind of is a perfectly serviceable Linux kernel through WSL. That's one of the unique things about NT - it was designed for binary compatibility for programs written for several distinct systems.
Now all they have to do is switch their kernel to linux, their gui to kde and get their office suite to LibreOffice, and Windows will be the perfect computer.
> their gui to kde
Sorry, no. For as bad as Windows 10 might be interface-wise, Linux DE's are far, far worse for anybody but Linux fans.
I know it’s a joke, but OpenSSH is not that old: its initial release was in December, 1999.
Looks like it was forked from some predecessors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Shell#OSSH ) but doesn't go into the history much more than that. I remember telnet, where there any encrypted predecessors before the ssh family?
> where there any encrypted predecessors before the ssh family?
The irony is, with Windows 10/2019, it's the other way around: Linux has switched its kernel to NT. See WSL.
> Linux has switched its kernel to NT. See WSL This makes absolutely no sense. Linux is a kernel. If Linux 'switched its kernel to NT', it would not be Linux. Perhaps you meant the userspace, which is not dependent upon the kernel?
WSL is an implementation of the Linux kernel ABI on top of the NT kernel.
Typical Linux user space does depend on the kernel ABI – most significantly via glibc, systemd and friends, but also to various degrees up through the stack.
That is really something, before as a dev coming from linux when I first was about to login on a Windows Server I didn't understand how to do it since it were no SSH. Administrating the server via a GUI always felt backwards somehow. Why waste CPU cycles on rendering a UI when the CLI is so great (on linux)?
Microsoft has come a really long way recently towards moving to CLI-based management. Starting with Server 2016, the default installation method of Windows Server no longer includes most of the GUI (called the Desktop Experience), leaving you with a command prompt window in the middle of the screen instead. An even thinner version of Windows Server, Nano Server, is also available, and includes even less GUI, being mu…
I think it's more a compatibility thing than an original desire for more CLI. All that deployment tooling built on top of scp, protocols like git over ssh. Without ssh, Microsoft would forever be out of that game. Those things are definitely not "not CLI", but the CLI question is not in focus.
That is really something, before as a dev coming from linux when I first was about to login on a Windows Server I didn't understand how to do it since it were no SSH. Administrating the server via a GUI always felt backwards somehow. Why waste CPU cycles on rendering a UI when the CLI is so great (on linux)?
Microsoft has come a really long way recently towards moving to CLI-based management. Starting with Server 2016, the default installation method of Windows Server no longer includes most of the GUI (called the Desktop Experience), leaving you with a command prompt window in the middle of the screen instead. An even thinner version of Windows Server, Nano Server, is also available, and includes even less GUI, being mu…
Shameless plug: There's also remote GUI support through Windows Admin Center. You can manage your headless server through the browser on your workstation. It's also a good way to learn CLI-based management (the implementation is almost all powershell scripts, and there is a "show script" feature) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/manage/windo...