Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Announces Nano Server

blogs.technet.com

41–50 of 118 posts

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#41

Microsoft has a real hole in their stack in my opinion... So on Linux you have SSH (for shell) and X11 Forwarding/VNC for GUI remoting. On Windows you have RDP for GUI and nothing for remote shell. Now, I know what you're going to say, "WMI" but WMI was never designed for use over the internet. You have to forward two fixed ports and a dynamic range (shudder). Plus it isn't security hardened either by design or throu…

You are ignoring Windows Remote Management, Microsofts implementation of the WBEM standard protocol for remote management of devices.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384426(v=vs.85).a...

"Windows Remote Management (WinRM) is the Microsoft implementation of WS-Management Protocol, a standard Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)-based, firewall-friendly protocol that allows hardware and operating systems, from different vendors, to interoperate. The WS-Management protocol specification provides a common way for systems to access and exchange management information across an IT infrastructure. WinRM and Intelligent Platform Management Interface (IPMI), along with the Event Collector are components of the Windows Hardware Management features."

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#42
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% fewer reboots Still many times more frequent than w/Linux. The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot. Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels. Can't wait for the no-reboot kernel patches planned for a future Linux kernel.

> The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot. Uhh they literally don't release updates that often, so you'll have to explain that one to us... > Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels. Windows doesn't support hotpatching, Linux does, it really is as simpl…

>Uhh they literally don't release updates that often, so you'll have to explain that one to us...

Microsoft most certainly releases reboot updates more often than the once a month patch Tuesday. I'm not sure if they apply to the OP's specific system, Win2008 R2, but I am rebooting my various computers more than once a month.

My system's update history shows two fixes around Mar 27 (KB2976978 and KB3048778) and one of those required a reboot. I remember because I had to do it. This pattern goes back in time quite far - bunch of fixes for patch Tuesday (requires a reboot), and a handful of off-cycle recommended/optional fixes, which often require a reboot too.

If you apply updates as they appear (and take the optional and recommended ones) you will DEFINITELY be rebooting more than once a month.

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#45

https://github.com/andres-erbsen/dename uses a less flexible federated consensus to build a namecoin-like system without proof of work (or stake, or anything).

I think you're on the wrong thread, maybe you're looking for this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9341687

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#46
post #40

From this announcement: http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2015/04/08/microsoft-unveils... I read: > Nano Server provides just the components you need – nothing else And that's exactly what I do not trust MS with. With a well documented history of backdoor ridden bloat ware products it is not quite the company that I accept any non-opensource release to have "just what I need and nothing else". Though I must admit that…

Please down voter(s), leave a note.. :)

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#47
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PowerShell web access might be a good alternative: http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2012/11/05/window...

You don't need this. You just need Enter-PSSession [ipaddress], which allows you to interact with it like ssh. You need to enable powershell remoting first though.

Sort of. Enter-PSSession is backed by http or https [1] and is not as good as ssh. You can interact with PowerShell, but you can't interact with command-line programs launched from PS.

[1] Grep for "http" on this page: http://ss64.com/ps/enter-pssession.html

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#48
post #37
post #21

--92 percent fewer critical bulletins --80 percent fewer reboots Compared to what a barebones Linux install (Say... a Docker instance)? I can easily shut off a service in Linux. And I can turn it on. The only reboot needed is for the Kernel itself, and that is soon changing. What I'm reading here is that MS is most of the way there to Linux.

net start [service name] net stop [service name]

Which does absolutely nothing on Patch Tuesday updates that require a reboot.

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#49
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% fewer reboots Still many times more frequent than w/Linux. The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot. Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels. Can't wait for the no-reboot kernel patches planned for a future Linux kernel.

> The 2008 R2 development system we have needs to be rebooted every two weeks, on average, due to Windows Updates that require a reboot. Uhh they literally don't release updates that often, so you'll have to explain that one to us... > Updates come in almost every day for CentOS and I only need to reboot once ever couple of months for new kernels. Windows doesn't support hotpatching, Linux does, it really is as simpl…

It supports hotpatching, but there're nuances like everything that is being updates has to support it, otherwise reboot will be required.

Re: Microsoft Announces Nano Server

#50

Microsoft has a real hole in their stack in my opinion... So on Linux you have SSH (for shell) and X11 Forwarding/VNC for GUI remoting. On Windows you have RDP for GUI and nothing for remote shell. Now, I know what you're going to say, "WMI" but WMI was never designed for use over the internet. You have to forward two fixed ports and a dynamic range (shudder). Plus it isn't security hardened either by design or throu…

I'm not a ssh expert (I live in the MS world), but powershell remote sessions (PSSession) seems like what you are talking about here... it's like running in a powershell window on a remote machine.

I'm not too confident powershell is really good enough to compete with the ancient unix shell. I've tried using it to automate windows machines, but it's certainly not a smooth experience.

Part of that is the lack of a history of automation - basic things to do with processes and I/O are kind of schizophrenic. All of the basics are clearly unix inspired (standard streams, processes, redirection - this is all unix-like), but many windows tools use different conventions to exchange data and control channels - powershell has a real object model.

In principle powershell's richer object model is a boon to automation - it's so much easier not to make mistakes if you don't need to massage your data through lots of slightly different text-based hacks, but the object model just isn't nearly pervasive enough. Sometimes you still need plain text/binary streams, and the transition isn't great. More fundamentally, the object model isn't well thought out - it's built on .NET, but that's clearly a single-process focused world view, and for a inter-process management tool, that poses problems. Even if sending objects between processes would work smoothly, there's the issue that objects don't compose or reflect as smoothly as text. It's hard to put your finger on, but for example, you can use things like regex's to do fairly fancy pattern matching on strings, and the equivalent for objects just isn't there in powershell. As a result, things work great if you're doing something that the underlying processes "want" you to do - but if you're trying to hack around some limitation, or try something novel, it's much more painful than in bash.

I think it's also worth mentioning some practical problems: Powershell is really slow and heavy. You can cheaply pipe and juggle data in a unix shell, but by doing that in powershell I've seen machines grind to a halt. A fresh powershell instance has a working set of 100MB on my machine; bash: 5MB. That's a problem. Startup time, similarly, is slow. This isn't a problem if you're working purely interactively - no human is going to notice an extra 10ms here or there, but in scripting, you can easily start so many processes that the difference becomes very noticable.

Powershell isn't terrible, but it just doesn't work as well as the unix shell, despite all the warts that has. Maybe some day everything will speak powershell, and it'll faster, smaller, and have a better story concerning pattern matching, but right now it's relatively ineffective compared to a plain unix shell, in my experience (which is windows centric).

Post reply on HN