I have been quite vocal about a few things:
- Microsoft’s bashing of the GUI is unnecessary and unwarranted. I think Nano is a great idea. In fact, one of my first pieces of feedback as a Hyper-V MVP many years ago was that I wanted a version of Hyper-V that was even more stripped down than Hyper-V Server. However, in reality, the driver/firmware eco-system is not solid enough for Nano outside cloud-scale deployments. That’s limited to around 100 data centers in the world (guess). Nano’s biggest customer will be (or already is) Azure. And do you think that MSFT is buying the same server as you and putting up with Emulex or Broadcom crap? Hah! Moron!
- I don’t like that Microsoft removed a full install from the installation of WS2016 TPv2. Out here in the real world, stuff like that affects adoption rates. The presence of Metro and lack of Start menu has actually prevented WS2012+ installations. This is not hyperbole – I deal with this quite frequently.
Some of you are self-elected thought police: “You should just get with the program”. To you I say: shut up. What’s right for you isn’t right for anyone.
Let’s get on to what I have not said:
- I have not said: “Get rid of Nano”. See above.
- I have not said: “Remove the core install from WS2016”. Some of you (30%) install Core/MinShell and that’s fine. How exactly does returning the Full install option hurt you?
- I have not said: “Remote administration is bad”. How does having a full UI on my server prevent remote administration? I prefer to manage servers from my PC using tools on my PC. But you know what, sometimes I work from home and have to log into a server over a latent VPN connection. Sometimes sh1t happens on a server and I need to work locally because it’s faster or the network card driver/firmware is frakked (see eco-system above).
- I have not said: “Automation is bad”. I use PowerShell a lot of the time, yeah, with full install Hyper-V hosts and SOFS nodes. My sessions at Ignite 2015 and TechEd Europe 2014 consisted of 75 minutes of Hyper-V/clustering PowerShell demonstrations! But there are times where a GUI is faster and more efficient. If you don’t get that then you don’t live in the real world of dealing with things breaking. Maybe you’d like to have SCOM without a UI too?
Have you imagined that I’ve said any of the above things? If so then please go search for and highlight where I said those things. Find where I said it? Hmm? Reading an comprehension issues, have you?
I get that people love their GUIS buy how many time did I see people doing something in the GUI that would one have requires a one liner in PowerShell. It’s all about balance.
I’m not seeing Microsoft as bashing the GUI as they have clearly stated that they are making investments in remote enabling some critical GUI tools. To me if the remote management story is good, GUI or command line, that should do the trick.
Read above.
i really enjoy the articles on your site, however, the search function does not seem to be working. It dumps me out after typing 1 letter.
Yeah – it’s a bug. I’ll have to look at replacing the theme I think.
Interesting. I do like your views on the fact the GUI isn’t dead, I still see in lot of environments a complete reliance on the GUI, and blank faces when presented with a cmd prompt. There’s plenty of reluctance to adopt proper scaled use of Powershell and Core environments. In the real world, the GUI is indeed a life-saver.
I see a lot of what MS are doing as scalable management. They’re definitely moving in a particluar direction. It’s hard for me to put over to people the benefits of Server Manager and it’s single pane of glass view of an infrastructure. I will be interested to POC the Nano installs though for particular roles, the smaller footprint for genuinely remote-management capable roles will be an interesting comparison to full-GUI deployments.
I’m in full agreement with your views by the way, just thinking aloud on my own observations. 🙂
I would love to see Microsoft “remote enable” NIC/network troubleshooting on servers. Until that day, I will be installing full GUI on our servers as well.
Hi Aidan,
TOTALLY agree with your statement.
It should be possible to decide myself which “kind of administration” I want to do – for whatever reason.
Without a doubt, we know that “PowerShell is king” but do it more in a smooth way and not with a hard cut. So Microsoft, please offer several opportunities (Nano, Mini-Shell, Full-Gui) for the upcoming Windows Server 2016.
Hopefully Microsoft reserves the direction to hear their customers “requirements”.
Haecki
I agree that it wouldn’t hurt to include the option to intall with GUI. It’s fine the way it is now in 2012R2.
If they don’t include the option during setup, there’s always the possibility to customize the installation with an auto/unattend.xml file and/or other deployment tools.
However, people needing the GUI might not know about this, or have the time to put this into place (usually smaller companies with smaller IT departments).
The opposite is true : people benefiting from servers without GUI usually already automate/customize their deployments. Small effort to remove the GUI…
So I agree it’s not logical that MS decided to remove the option during standard setup sequences.
The push toward powershell and a GUI-less server makes a ton of sense *IN SOME USE CASES*. It is silly to run a GUI on thousands of Azure machines that are running in a hosted environment.
But some of us still haven’t gotten off of 2008 because their stakeholders are on strike against the 2012 UI and will not even begin to think about scripting everything.
It is important to sell to new markets, but you should also sell to the market you have now.