[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 16/02/14 15:01, bad apple wrote: > On 16/02/14 08:29, Mark Evans wrote: >> On 14/02/14 23:12, Julian Hall wrote: >> >>> Another strategy would have been for Microsoft to follow the Linux path >>> and separate the GUI/Window Manager from the OS and during installation >>> let the user choose. I had a laptop supplied for a recent course [1] >> >> Microsoft made the decision to "integrate" the OS with the GUI. Even to >> the extent of "entangling" OS code with UI code. (In effect they >> deliberatly chose to write "sphaghetti code".) >> This also means that it's very hard to impossible to have an actually >> "headless" Windows server. Something you can easily do with any unix >> type system. (Also something you could do with OS/2 and RISCOS.) >> That would be the more obvious practical upshot of a version of Windows >> which separated OS from GUI. > > > You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Server 2012/2008 > has an excellent headless mode (known as "core server") that is fully A term which means nothing at all to most people. Microsoft has it's own specific jargon, as do most large companies. Only in 2012 does there actually appear to be a "disable GUI" option. > supported and in heavy use world wide by people who actually know what > they're doing. I personally support about 100 instances of headless > Windows servers, administered chiefly through powershell and SSH. Windows being 20 odd years behind is hardly something to be positive about. (Windows NT server 3.5 being the first Windows server product, released in September 1994). "Powershell" dates from November 2006. By comparison Novell Netware dates from 1983.(PC/NFS also appeared fairly soon after Sun Microsystems developed NFS.) > > Please do not post such obviously clueless bullshit about subjects you > are in no way qualified to discuss. 5 seconds on google would have > taught you the error of your ways - congratulations on being > embarrassingly and factually wrong. A useful link would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > The level of weapon-grade anti-Microsoft FUD and pure stupidity > sometimes displayed on this list occasionally succeeds in making me > really, really cross. This is one of those occasions. Why should you care what anyone thinks about any company? Especially one based in a foreign country; who have been caught breaking the law more than once and with enough money and resources to "defend" themselves. > Please all of you: I get that you don't like Microsoft on some kind of > retarded, self-defeating principle. That's fine. But some of us are > professionals who know how to use the right tool for the right job and > aren't swayed by agenda wielding FLOSStards and their stupid empty Novell Netware: Proprietary OS. SunOS, though derived from BSD Unix: Proprietary OS. OS/2: Proprietary OS. RISCOS: Proprietary OS. All of which were capable of acting as headless servers for PCs before the turn of the century/millennium. Microsoft were a latecomer to this market (as they have been in several other cases). Yet until recently their server platform required a GUI to be run on the server. Possibly around the same time that most of their proprietary competition was gone. > rhetoric. You do not help yourselves when you say things as blatantly > incorrect and moronic as this. The term "professional" is usually considered to be mutually exclusive with fallacious assumptions (and arguments), gross generalisations, general rudeness or outright rants.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq