Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Server 8 Is A Radical Departure From Previous Releases

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the rms-not-impressed dept.

Microsoft 347

Julie188 writes "While the world is distracted with the Window 8 client, Microsoft is simultaneously working on Windows Server 8. At BUILD, Microsoft unveiled its next-generation server OS under heavy secrecy to a room full of analysts and product testers. WS8 is radically different than its predecessors. There's an argument to make that it's not actually Windows. The code they saw was pre-beta and an obvious attempt to put an arrow in the heart of former-softie-turned-VMware-CEO Paul Maritz. Windows 8 Server editions are to be run in Server Core format (the GUI will be optional). PowerShell has gotten an overhaul and its command list will exceed 2,300 native commandlets in Windows Server 8. Hyper-V has also been revamped and will become massively scalable in the number of VMs supported and in the size of each VM." In related news, it appears that Java now runs on Microsoft's Azure platform.

cancel ×

347 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Azure (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400718)

Not surprised that Java runs on Azure now. Even iCloud uses Azure for their backend.

Re:Azure (0, Troll)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400802)

And to be honest, Azure is probably the best cloud platform there is currently. It integrates beautifully with Visual Studio. When you compile your code you can run it directly in Azure and even debug it in the process. You have to test it yourself how easy it is actually is, there's no other platform that makes it so streamlined. If Microsoft does something right it's developing tools for programmers.

Re:Azure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400834)

Integration of MS products with MS products is not a reason to call something great. This applies if you replace MS with any other corporation.

Re:Azure (-1, Troll)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400916)

No it doesn't apply, as there just isn't any development tools as good as Visual Studio, nor there is cloud platform that integrates so good with your development tools. Nothing really offers the same kind of usability.

On a related note, I was seriously surprised how easy it is to develop software for both Windows Phone 7 and Azure with Visual Studio. Just try it. And the best thing is, they all work together - from your Windows app to WP7 app and to a Silverlight applet and Azure cloud. No other system comes even close to the level of integration MS has done. Just for that reason I think they're doing a great job with it.

Re:Azure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401226)

What a waste of manpower to constantly have to change M$ products.

Nice that M$ is finally getting to standards. sloppy code is finally getting caught by IIS7.

    So how is the weather in Redmond today?

Re:Azure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401412)

and the summary..."PowerShell has gotten an overhaul and its command list will exceed 2,300 native commandlets in Windows Server 8".

Cool. For their next project they can reinvent an IPC that's worth a damn and has half the flexibility of pipes. Let me know when they finally get through reinventing Unix poorly.

Re:Azure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401554)

You realize that PS passes full blown objects using pipe or stirngs, you can choose....

Re:Azure (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401270)

Visual Studio is great, but Eclipse is just as good as a platform. For some reason, every time I say this, I get modded down.

Re:Azure (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401332)

Visual Studio is great, but Eclipse is just as good as a platform. For some reason, every time I say this, I get modded down.

Probably because many of us have used both of them :).

I haven't used Visual Studio for two or three years, but it was far less annoying than any version of Eclipse I've used, didn't require gigabytes of RAM to run, didn't crash anywhere near as often, and didn't fill the disk up with hundreds of megabytes of workspace files that it would randomly corrupt with no means of fixing it.

Re:Azure (3, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401300)

Yes, there is. UNIX shell and command line in my opinion is the best development environment ever made. And it's been around for a long time. The usual arguments given why this isn't so all boil down to it takes average developer too long to learn it. But nothing can ever come to the level of productivity you get when you finally do. After you do, IDEs and Visual Studio in particular start being impediments rather than productivity boosters.

Re:Azure (-1, Troll)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401408)

Then you aren't doing any serious programming. Good IDE really is a must for any larger project. And seriously, it's almost 2012 and Linux shells still pass data as text, when passing objects would make so much more sense and give a lot more options. Linux's problem is staying with some 80's mentality and when trying to come up with new stuff, doing it completely wrong (like the newest Gnome and KDE versions)

Re:Azure (3, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401492)

Regularly work with millions of lines of code. My tools scale perfectly well, and for dozens of languages too, not just like VS which works OK for C#, but absolutely sucks for C++ or say Perl, or Eclipse which is good for Java, but sucks for C++ or Haskell for example.

I think before you make judgement on this, perhaps you owe it to yourself to learn it first, or at least watch someone who knows what they are doing (if you can find someone).

Re:Azure (1)

Stormtrooper42 (1850242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401458)

So, when working with a library you've never used before, it is faster for you to switch between the documentation and your code, than to use some sort of auto-complete feature, and to see the available methods along with their documentation right away?

Re:Azure (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400922)

Not intuit.

They're point of sale had massive amounts of problems integrating with quickbooks.

Re:Azure (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401036)

Well, I'm not sure integration was really the problem there. The thing is, if you take one piece of shit and shove another piece of shit into it, no matter how perfectly you mix the two pieces of shit, no matter how well planned your shit mixing is, no matter how homogenous and compatible you make the two pieces of shit, all you'll ever wind up with is a larger pile of shit.

Re:Azure (1)

sixminuteabs (1452973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400930)

Since when? It works for Apple, and it would certainly be a reason to call a product lousy if it integrated poorly.

Re:Azure (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400984)

I think his point was that there were companies other than MS that did this. The first (and only) company I can think of that does as good as MS, is Apple

However, The only two languages I prefer Objective C to, are Perl and Lisp. Hell, I'd rather program Java than Obj C.

Re:Integration is a powerful tool (1)

alinuxguruofyore (1117973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401024)

Integration of MS products with MS products is not a reason to call something great. This applies if you replace MS with any other corporation.

A products move from good to great is strongly based on its coupling and cohesion with other solutions. This is true for a software package, a hardware package, or a process. For example, Google Apps and Picassa have very little to no coupling and cohesion. Visual Studio and Azure have a very functional level of coupling and cohesion. Each is greater than the sum of their parts.

Re:Azure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400982)

You have to test it yourself how easy it is actually is, there's no other platform that makes it so streamlined.

Maybe you should try out these "other platforms"? Seems to me every other cloud has plugins for direct-to-cloud deploy, the only difference seems to be that azure locks you into visual studio, whereas the other clouds have plugins for eclipse, visual studio, etc. etc.

Re:Azure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401284)

Not true. http://www.windowsazure4e.org/

Re:Azure (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401158)

Now I am a huge Microsoft fan, but North Korea, just about all your comments read like adverts for MS development tools. Just sayin' is all.

Re:Azure (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401244)

I second this motion.

Re:Azure (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401338)

I agree as someone whose job involves reading lots of MS marketing materials.

as an alternative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400726)

Use a mac its so intuitive. No cards to install for printers. Also fpngr

Re:as an alternative (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401048)

*hands the troll a bone*

Windows has been perfectly intuitive for me. Moreso than MacOS. I found Ubuntu and FreeBSD more intuitive than MacOS, sadly. Admittedly with FreeBSD, I had someone point me to the handbook first thing. What is "most intuitive" very much depends on the user.

Oh, and I didn't need to install cards for printers on any of them. Usually I don't even need to download drivers separately (unless you count installing CUPS in FreeBSD).

...but does it have Edlin? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400740)

Windows is not done if it doesn't have Edlin, the world's greatest text editor.

Server cold war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400758)

Microsoft isn't saying anything about linux, however this is a direct attack against linux and unix in general, it is what microsoft does without mentioning linux that needs to be watched

Re:Server cold war (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400780)

Microsoft isn't saying anything about linux, however this is a direct attack against linux and unix in general

Its real competition, not "an attack". This is a good thing.

Re:Server cold war (-1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400870)

It will be a real competitor when it runs a properly compatible version of BASH, as opposed to that abortion PowerShell.

Thanks, but unless there's something truly fantastic about it, I'll continue running everything KVM, and if I want a Windows server it can be a guest. That way I'm not paying vast licensing fees for a bunch of cruft I don't want.

Re:Server cold war (1)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400958)

PowerShell is much more powerful than bash. Bash is pretty much just running linux commands with a few logical structures built-in. PowerShell is a lot more like an actual programming language, with real objects, functions and data handling.

Re:Server cold war (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400992)

And is overkill for about 99% of the scripting I do. If I want a real programming language, there are far better ones out than the PowerShell. It's too much for a command scripting language, and too little for heavy duty work. As usual, Microsoft foists another ginormous tool on admins, instead of taking the more rational minimalist approach. But that's alright. I expect 90% of Windows admins are terrified of the CLI anyways.

Re:Server cold war (2, Insightful)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401094)

So you are bashing PowerShell for allowing you to do more than what you need with it? Seriously? You don't need to use those extra features if you don't want to, but for anyone actually doing some work it's a great tool (you know, for those that actually do something else than play around with their wardrobe servers).

I don't think you have even used PowerShell, you just want to hate on it because it's Windows-based and that "ooh Windows admins must be stupid!" line makes it even more visible. The hard cold truth is that Windows Server is used on around 50% of servers, and is usually much better choice for certain things than Linux based server, especially in corporate environments. Linux is fine for hobbyist stuff and some real work, but the real world still uses Windows Server a lot.

Re:Server cold war (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401176)

Oh, I get it, your just Redmond snob. Even if I buy your penetration numbers (and I'lve always had problems with the 50% claim), that means half of the servers out there, and yes, in the real world (where I fucking work you condescending prick) are running *nix, and that means that most of their automation is being done with sh variants.

I've used Powershell where I have to because the alternative is vb/jscript, so no thank you on that score.

Re:Server cold war (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401218)

Linux is fine for hobbyist stuff and some real work, but the real world still uses Windows Server a lot.

The real world uses Linux and other Unix variants. While Windows may be fine for print servers and other non-critical business functions, no-one in ther right mind puts a Windows server up on the Internet where it can be attacked.

Re:Server cold war (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401312)

This fucking twerp is nothing more than a good example of your average head-up-the-ass Windows admin. I've taken one of those Microsoft Windows Server 2008 online courses, and the first fucking slide starts out with "Windows Server 2008 is the best server operating system ever created." Clearly this condescending asshole, who wouldn't know what goes in the real world if it came and kicked him the nuts, has bought the kool-aid.

And before that disgusting little prick comes back, I run a network made of Linux and Windows Server, administer a large AD network, and actually find aspects of Windows, particularly as far as Group Policies goes, very powerful indeed, so I'm not just some guy who built a Linux server to run his home computers and play around with Samba to look kewl.

Oh, and did I mention that this "North Korea" is a condescending prick? I'd like to just reiterate my extreme contempt for him. Probably one of those worthless Redmond lackeys that comes around here to impress us with his knowledge and his capacity for making friends.

Re:Server cold war (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401476)

Sorry, I forgot to check the user ID before I posted. If I'd realised it was him I'd have ignored it.

Re:Server cold war (0)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401518)

And you're a good example of how deluded some Linux geeks are, and cannot accept the fact that Microsoft actually makes good products, especially for businesses and companies. As much as I generally hate Internet Explorer, it's a good example of how open source developers just don't get what the real world requirements and needs are. IE is still the only browser that is easily mass-deployed with site wide policies and settings. I personally use Opera and Chrome, but those would be hell to deploy on a larger scale on some corporate network.

What Microsoft does get is what actual, real world businesses need. They also get what real world programmers need, and they get what enterprise servers need. Linux is great, but it misses many of those features - for example, how do you connect to a remote PC with bash and run your commands there? Oh, you can't. With PowerShell you can easily do that.

Re:Server cold war (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401594)

I'm in the real world, you fucking prick. I actually run an AD-network with Linux member servers. I administrate a wide-area network made of multiple locations running site-based AD.

Quit your sales pitch. *nix has been running in the real world longer than you've likely been alive. All you've done is demonstrate how fucking stupid, ignorant and idiotic you Redmond shills really are.

This idea that somehow Windows is the only solution, that somehow running *nix makes you some pimple-faced geek sitting in his parents basement is absurd. So fuck you again, you contemptible arrogant product whore.

Re:Server cold war (-1, Troll)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401348)

That's like saying no one puts a Linux based server up on the Internet where it can be attacked. UNIX based OSes have had many more remote vulnerabilities than Windows within it's entire history. Now a days the malware problem is mostly because of stupid home users and third party software like Flash. However, by default Windows Server is very locked down and no sane admin uses a server to browse for random stuff anyway. Third party software is also just as exploitable on Linux.

By the way, I would think exchange and email servers are quite critical for business functions. Hell, one of the largest programming websites StackOverflow uses Windows Servers, as do many other large businesses.

Re:Server cold war (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401404)

Unix based OSs have been around nearly twice as long. And I love how your invoking that questionable vulnerability metric.

Can you confirm my hunch that you're a Microsoft employee? Even your fellow MS-fans here think you're way over the top.

Re:Server cold war (0)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401572)

No I'm not a Microsoft employee. Why does everyone always think you have to work for some company if you give positive comments about them? Besides, I think most people don't really comment about the company they work. I'm sure slashdot has lots of Google, Microsoft, Apple and so on employees reading this site, but they stay out of the discussions about their company.

Re:Server cold war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401436)

Hello 0123456. It appears you have time travelled from about 10 years ago. How are you liking the present day? You have a lot to learn though. Things have changed.

Re:Server cold war (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401470)

The problem is the complexity, dumping users, especially windows users who have little or no CLI experience into a powerful environment like powershell is not a good approach.. Especially when it's something completely new, rather than a logical extension of something users will already have been familiar with.

Bash is simple yet flexible, and builds on the bourne shell which has been around for many years... You don't need to learn anything new in order to get on with it, and bash is very good for the majority of people's tasks.
For the small subset of people who need something more powerful, there are a large number of existing scripting or full on programming languages available.

The same can be said of ACLs, windows only provides acls while unix provides both acls and regular unix permissions... Windows also provides different APIs for adjusting registry and driver ACLs, while unix uses the same filesystem APIs for both.
Unix permissions are less flexible, but provide everything that 99% of users require. The complexity of windows ACLs and the multiple different APIs for setting permissions in different places however discourage people from using them, so you get lots of users with weak permissions on their files, device drivers with weak permissions and programs that set poor permissions on their installation files or configuration.

You need simple but flexible for 99% of users by default, and an optional more powerful system for the 1% who need it.

Re:Server cold war (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401560)

I'm just flabbergasted by 2300 "commandlets" in PowerShell... they couldn't abstract and simplify the system enough to reduce that?

Re:Server cold war (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401582)

You don't need to learn anything new in order to get on with it

Uh, if you already know it.

while unix uses the same filesystem APIs for both.

Meanwhile chmod modifies traditional Unix permissions, while acl_* functions modify the ACLs. From the user's perspective, chmod and ls -l is used for traditional permissions, but setfacl and getfacl are used for ACLs. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that Unix is consistent on this matter...

Unix permissions are less flexible, but provide everything that 99% of users require.

Whereas if they don't, you're totally screwed. Want to share a file with just one or two other people, but don't have root (to create a group)? Have fun with traditional Unix permissions.

(In undergrad, when I worked on a group project, our security was "gee, I hope no one guesses the name of this directory.")

Re:Server cold war (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401386)

Exactly. Powershell is not a replacement for bash, but for perl, python, or whatever other scripting language you like. Bash is a UI with some programming features thrown in to make it more powerful. Powershell is a programming language with some UI features thrown in as an afterthought.

Re:Server cold war (1)

shadowsurfr1 (746027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400994)

Agreed on the BASH part. FTA: "[Powershell is] literally an OS itself. You can do anything in it," In other words, MS is saying, "Look at what we have! a command prompt you can administrate the computer through!" How non exciting when the same thing has been available in Linux/other OSes for a long, long time.

Re:Server cold war (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401054)

I just don't understand why Microsoft can't just make a good BASH variant for Windows, so us folks who administrate heterogeneous networks can create a common stock of admin scripts, and a common scripting language to do them in. Microsoft still can't get over the fact that it isn't the only boy in town in the server world, and making proper integration tools, as opposed to trying to force itself on us at every turn, should take precedence.

Yes, I know there's Cygwin, but it's huge and a major pain in the ass and I consider the ugliest of hacks.

Re:Server cold war (1, Insightful)

North Korea (2457866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401134)

Why you blame Microsoft for it? What about we turn it around and ask why can't Linux folks just make a good PowerShell variant for Linux distros?

Re:Server cold war (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401180)

Coz if they did MS would sue, sue and sue again.

Anyway, what's wrong with bash then?

Re:Server cold war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401186)

What about we turn it around and ask why can't Linux folks just make a good PowerShell variant for Linux distros?

Because no one actually wants that.

Re:Server cold war (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401190)

Is there some reason that PowerScript is needed on *nix, which has a tool set far beyond anything Microsoft has ever produced.

Re:Server cold war (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401540)

Probably because sh-derivatives like bash are common on more operating systems that GNU/Linux, and because bash itself is frequently used on other Unix-like OSes. It is also the case that bash has been around for a long time, and there are a lot of bash scripts that IT guys have lying around that they would love to use on Windows.

Re:Server cold war (1)

thelexx (237096) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401596)

That you Baghdad Bob? We love you! [welovethei...nister.com]

Re:Server cold war (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401092)

Yeah...when reading the synopsis, my first thoughts were..."Hey...windows server is becoming Unix".

And if they do tthat....why bother with windows, when there are more mature Unix type OSes out there?

Re:Server cold war (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401056)

Personally, I think PowerShell is a lot closer to the ideal shell for today than Bash is (and I'm typing this on Linux). PS is kind of maddening to use because of some things like the tab completion differences (I've tried to give it a fair shot, but I really don't like it) and the god-awful "terminal emulator" that it runs in.

But I strongly feel that if the Linux folks would take a step back and acknowledge that it's no longer 1970, they'd see that have programs set up to pass objects around instead of text can be hugely beneficial.

(I'm open to some textual serialization of objects, such as JSON or similar.)

Re:Server cold war (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401140)

And yet, for all of that, the SH-variants have an enormous body of code behind them. I'm willing to concede there are aspects of Powershell that might be desirable, but it's a fucking nightmare to code in, and for scripting, I don't really want to code anyways. The whole point behind sh and all its children wasn't so that you could have some full blown programming language, but rather that you could automate tasks, and at that, the sh family works remarkably well, and has done so for decades.

I have no problem with choice, but I would love it if a properly integrated bash variant was available on Windows. Not one that requires some awful layer like Cygwin, but one that runs natively without some ghastly compatibility layer.

Re:Server cold war (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401290)

And yet, for all of that, the SH-variants have an enormous body of code behind them

And yet, Windows has lots of legacy apps despite it being in many ways inferior to *nixs. (I believe in the last bit of that rather less than your typical /.er.) Popularity isn't particularly good evidence of not being sucky.

it's a fucking nightmare to code in

As opposed to sh? ...but rather that you could automate tasks, and at that, the sh family works remarkably well, and has done so for decades

And a more PS-like shell could do it far better in many cases.

(Okay, in some sense I'm lumping way too much in with the shell, and am considering the common utilities like ls in there too. Really, a new suite of utilities without a new shell could do more than a new shell with the same old utilities.)

I would love it if a properly integrated bash variant was available on Windows. Not one that requires some awful layer like Cygwin, but one that runs natively without some ghastly compatibility layer.

Now I actually agree with you there.

Re:Server cold war (1)

beuges (613130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401462)

It's only a nightmare to you because you are familiar with bash etc and you are not familiar with PS.

I still don't understand why you are hating PS for having more functionality that you need. If it didn't do some particular task, then you'd be all over it for being incomplete or lacking or not up to production standards, but now it does everything you need and more and you still find something to complain about?

Your problem is simply that PS is not BASH, not that PS sucks in any way, but because all you know is BASH, PS therefore sucks. You've made about half a dozen comments in this thread moaning about how PS is not BASH, and how Windows should rather include BASH instead of PS, and how PS is pointless and garbage because it's not BASH.

And then you paradoxically say you have no problem with choice, as long as the choice is BASH.

I think the problem is actually with you.

Re:Server cold war (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401524)

I'm not saying get rid of powershell, I'm saying put a native variant of a shell scripting language that has been around for longer than Bill Gates has been in the computer industry. That way, there is a proper choice.

Re:Server cold war (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401352)

But I strongly feel that if the Linux folks would take a step back and acknowledge that it's no longer 1970, they'd see that have programs set up to pass objects around instead of text can be hugely beneficial.

The advantage here being...? It sounds like a cool feature, but what would I be doing where I would actually want to have object oriented programming in my shell?

Re:Server cold war (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401478)

The biggest problem is that you often need to parse (and reparse, and reparse...) data because.... it's in a textual format. Most of the time it's easy parsing, like extracting a column, but it's still obnoxious. ("Does it start at column 40? No? 45? No? How' bout 43?" Or you write a "ruler" script.)

Parsing file names in particular is... "interesting". It's basically never worth it to get it actually correct, which should tell you that something in the toolchain is doing it wrong.

Re:Server cold war (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401480)

It might come in handy, I suppose, in processing XML-based configs, but those still make a pretty small chunk of all the conf files in existence. For any heavy duty processing like that you always have awk or Perl if you want a full-blown language. Heck, I remember writing a ten or fifteen line awk script that processed some weirdo mainframe style inventory list of about 100,000 items into a csv file using awk.

The issue here, I think, is that *nix doesn't really use objects at all for base OS interaction. That's a Windows thing. So maybe Powershell really is a Windows necessity, though, as I said, even in my Windows scripting, I can't really think of any occasions where I need it desperately. At the end of the day, the underlying Windows configuration system still is largely name-value pairs, no matter how much OOP veneer Microsoft chooses to put on top of it.

Re:Server cold war (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401514)

http://www.steve.org.uk/Software/bash/ [steve.org.uk]

You're welcome.

Oh, what's that? You mean you really wanted Bash + the entire toolchain? And also the same OS conventions and the same security model?

Re:Server cold war (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401544)

Thanks for that link to an unmaintained build whose latest file is from 2000.

Re:Server cold war (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400998)

On Slashdot, competing with Linux is an "attack" and makes you evil.

Re:Server cold war (2)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400836)

Actually, it seems like Microsoft sees VMware as its actual competition [itworld.com] .

Re:Server cold war (2)

Monoman (8745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401496)

And I still can't quite figure out how exactly VMWare is a threat to MS. VMWare made it easier for shops to run more MS servers by combining them.

Besides how long is it going to take MS to release the next server OS with the features they are advertising?

I hope in the long run they do VMs like they do Terminal Servers. MS isn't putting Citrix out of business by providing some basic TS capabilities built into the product. If you need more then what MS provides then you go to a vendor that goes beyond the basics. Citrix for TS and VMWare for VMs.

How is this a radical departure? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400788)

These just sound like incremental improvements. I'm not complaining but adding extra commandlets and features isn't a "radical departure". Plus, the GUI is optional on the current version of Windows Server.

Shhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400810)

This is heavy secrecy?
ROTFLMAObbq

BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT! (5, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37400864)

C'mon, Bill, do you really expect us to fall for that AGAIN?

(Of course, some will... I'm depressed now...)

Re:BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401212)

As usual, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Bill Gates hasn't worked at Microsoft since 2006.

Re:BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401490)

I guess I was yelling at the little icon to the right of the article, Mister Pedantic.

Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37400954)

Windows Server. It's like military intelligence.

O.o (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401080)

Someone in Redmond realized that a server doesn't necessarily need a GUI???

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401240)

How would you do anything? You can't buy apps from the Azure store without a GUI. This will never work.

Remember! a GUI is like a fancy menu. Menus make easy things simple and hard things imposable

Re:O.o (1, Informative)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401242)

To be fair they did come to this realisation several years ago now. products like Exchange, DPM and even many windows commands are only fully accessible through CLI/powershell and current versions of win server can run headless for many tasks.

Re:O.o (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401370)

They realized it a few years, but it looks like they are now thinking about making it mandatory.

See "Windows Server Core"

Re:O.o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401482)

I get nothing from running headless systems. There is no reason not to have a gui to configure your web/app/streaming pron server

the circle is complete (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401086)

VMS -> WNT -> W2K -> W2003 -> W2008 -> VMS.

Re:the circle is complete (1)

tigersha (151319) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401322)

Getta Byte, Getta Byte, Getta Byte Byte Byte!

... and the hype continues... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401120)

While the world is distracted with the Window 8 client

.
"The world"? Probably the funniest thing I read all day.

Re:... and the hype continues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401562)

The only thing I thought, "WTF is Windows 8 client?" Sooo, I'm with you there!

Workstationable? (1)

Erelas (1077365) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401146)

Will it still be able to be converted to a workstation OS like server2008 and R2, and, as a workstation, will it be a more seamless transition for users from Windows 7 than 8 proper?

Re:Workstationable? (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401356)

Apparently, desktop versions will be more pad-like than windows-like.

Server version with "GUI optional" implies you install the GUI package and get on with your workstationy stuff.

As for 7 to 8, it looks like a whole new paradigm. Windows 7 is still, in look and feel, a windows-on-a-desktop-analog GUI in the Xerox PARC mold. The pad paradigm is a whole new kettle of fishsticks, even if you're using a mouse and keyboard instead of your digits.

Doesn't that already exist? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401148)

Where have I heard of this before? Lets see... A server OS that has the option to be command line only and has in exceed of 2,300 command line functions.... Oh yeah... Unix/Linux.

Re:Doesn't that already exist? (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401196)

MS is finally catching up. It's only 20 years behind! I know several "IT guys" who will be lost if the UI goes away, though.

Who Cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401162)

Who cares? Does anyone still use their bug ridden, virus prone, products?

PowerShell (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401178)

I'm glad PowerShell is getting an upgrade. It's already very good, but little tweaks can easily make it much better.

LOL Windows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401222)

Anybody else still have nightmares about back when they used to run that shoddy OS?

Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters and Microsoft Windows stories?

Can we please get back to bashing Apple [guardian.co.uk] now?

Catch up (1)

mixmasta (36673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401238)

And with that Windows catches up with the late 70's. :P

Re:Catch up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401362)

and other still need to catch up with what is being offered in the Microsoft ecosystem with Windows 8. Only an idiot and ignorant fool will make a statement like this, and has no clue what has been achieved by Microsoft and shared in the last 2 days

feature creep? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401272)

its command list will exceed 2,300 native commandlets

Holy fuck. I don't even know how to process that number of commands to remember.

Re:feature creep? (1)

dino2gnt (1072530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401416)

As long as it has tab completion, you won't.

Re:feature creep? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401438)

One of the things that made Unix so powerful was that you only really had to understand 20 or so commands, which could be composed in arbitrary ways to get you the behavior you needed. I would guess that many of those 2300 commands are just hard-coded implementations of commonly used compositions of other commands, or that the same tasks could be accomplished by composition.

Re:feature creep? (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401558)

Thats how PowerShell works, too...

2300 "commands" really means there are a few hundred objects with some number of operations you can take on them, and you do so by chaining them together like named pipes. Imagine, if you will, that every config file on your Unix system was an object that you could pipe commands in and out of. That's how you have to compare it to Unix.

So, in some ways its easier. Rather than having to do piping through grep/sed/whatever to switch some setting in a config file, you just call an operation on that object in PowerShell, then you can pipe that object to something else to do another action.

Re:feature creep? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401564)

For comparison, English has about 500,000 words.

quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401316)

"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer

three year delay in copying Apple (0)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37401452)

An improvement over Windows which took nine years to copy properly

Match the qulity and the price point. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37401516)

It will be like Xbox, MS will have to pay people to use it.

IMHO, the sooner MS runs out of money the better off all of will be.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>