161–170 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it misleading at all? Hyper-V Manager for example is literally a wrapper for Powershell commands. Virtually all Windows administration can be done entirely in Powershell. And like I said, the literal default installation of Windows does not even include a GUI.
What do you consider the "literal default installation"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not Mac? Best of both worlds.
I would have said the same thing a year ago. Today not so much because Apple hardware prices have skyrocketed. It used to be that a Mac cost 2x the PC equivalent, but now the cost is reaching 3x. For many, especially considering engineering salaries, that's justified. To me, having the familiar GNU toolchain and Linux configuration available at any moment without having to use a VM or Homebrew is worth the downgrade…
He said
>I, as a consumer, would gladly pay good money to be able to use Outlook and the MS Office suite.
You can do that on a Mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if a joke, but I'd absolutely love this. I, as a consumer, would gladly pay good money to be able to use Outlook and the MS Office suite. Regardless of what anyone claims, the linux alternatives are useable but not nearly as good. I used to use Windows with Cygwin, but found I spent way more time doing linux-y things than Windows-y things...so switched away.
Why not Mac? Best of both worlds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft's GUI management tools were really good and generally very discoverable. IMO they were a much better way to manage an OS than cryptically named CLI programs and text files. And most of them worked remotely. And by comparison to modern software they can not even remotely be considered bloated. Every electron application ever made is larger than all of RSAT. Now of course they suck ass because MS has no idea…
It's almost 2019. Are we still fighting over this? OTOH, purely from my experience, MS's tools are good for managing a domain, or some computers. When you start to administer hundreds or thousands of servers, scriptability of CLI tools and pliability of text files trumps all computer automation. xCAT and Salt are two tools (that I use regularly) which are built on these properties and can manage thousands of servers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont know if that means they didnt understand it. It reads like they were trying to solve the underlying problems with a different approach. SSH is an awesome tool & capability as a relatively high level network channel. The defacto “shell” approach leads to a lot of problems when used as a management device. It encourages adhoc, unstructured, and opaque changes. Managing your hosts via Secure Shell simply leads to…
They already had group policy for structured administration. What Windows was missing specifically was a non-GUI way for that unstructured "get in there and fix the problem" work flow. Structured workflows may well be better for you, but quick and dirty has a lot of appeal. Sometimes you just have to give people the candy they want - even if its not good for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How does RSAT compare to the new Windows Admin Center?
Personally, the Windows Admin Center is a nice-to-have tool for quick tasks by inexperienced or occasional admins - but you really should just learn Powershell.
I really like the idea, but if you're going to administer production Windows servers, it seems like you may as well learn PowerShell which already has a nice remoting framework.
This reminds me of that old quotation: "Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix ->
"In the mid-to-late 1980s, Xenix was the most common Unix variant, measured according to the number of machines on which it was installed.[1][2] Microsoft chairman Bill Gates said in 1996 that for a long time that company had the highest-volume AT&T Unix license"
Microsoft definitely understood Unix and figured out there was no market for it for close to 2 decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mounting requires other ports to be opened, which no sysadmin will do on the internet. Ssh on the other hand can be started on a non standard port.
IME most Windows servers are not directly exposed to the Internet, instead one would reach them via VPN.