Which types of servers, if any, do you prefer to run with desktop experience?
Posted by Wise-Reputation-7135@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 21 comments
Previous workplace ran a lot of servers, Windows and Linux, with desktop experience. Even the one that literally only ran rsync operations had a desktop experience, along with all of our Windows VMs. From what I can gather, in my admittedly limited experience, most people seem to prefer to go without.
Key-Trainer9381@reddit
Normally setup Domain Controllers as core and other servers running Microsoft roles. Applikation servers and jump servers (obviously) i tend to setup with GUI. Core are SOOOO much easier to setup. i rarely troubleshoot servers longer than 30 minutes. throw it away and install a new one. done.
LeonMoris_@reddit
I have had more issues with Windows Server Core than with the GUI so all servers need GUI IMO.
The pro's just don't outweigh the con's. If you have servers which need a GUI for the installation of specific applications, then you need the GUI. If the server only performs DHCP / DNS or AD, it doesnt take up that much more resources to have the GUI. Patch / Security / everything else management is much more easier in GUI and giving junior IT admins access to Windows Server Core is just asking for trouble.
You need to have ISO 27001 and have external auditors, proving you have av solution 1 over windows defender in Core to them is a pain in the ass.
If you need performance, than Core is the way to go, but it's down to the bare minimum IMO.
skob17@reddit
Your point regarding auditors baffles me everytime I talk to non-tech folks like quality assurance.
why is a screenshot considered proper evidence, but not the output of your automation script?
heck, once I had to take a screenshot of the cmd output, because the text log could have been manipulated in the editor..
rant over, sorry for ot
LeonMoris_@reddit
I get you, they think the output is something you have either written, or "programmed" to say it. Yeah and then I whipped out Photoshop and faked the icon of the AV solution. (Wish I had done that)
I think it's mostly auditors understand the path of clicking your mouse to settings > apps and scrolling down, rather than outputting data via cli commands cause they think you are hacking.
DaNPrS@reddit
Counter point, you should be using remote management tools instead of remoting into the server. So you can still use RBAC and remote PS to do 99% of all tasks on a DC running core.
This, you can still use the GUI while the node itself is lighter.
punklinux@reddit
Servers? None. My Linux workstations have KDE, but I need to use the browser and I like using konsole vs. alternate ttys or tmux.
Individual-Teach7256@reddit
GUI every time here. I dont need to flex CLI skills to the helpdesk, they already think im cool lol
menace323@reddit
Nobody has yet mentioned the App Compatability toolkit, which should solves a large number of the complaints here.
anxiousinfotech@reddit
Windows Server Core is a fickle beast. You have to be 100% sure, up front, that nothing you're ever going to need to run will need the GUI. There are a lot of Windows features and third party software that will not function without the GUI or some component that's only installed alongside the GUI. There are also roles/features that will work on Core, but with more imitations than GUI (e.g. WDS combined with DHCP).
We run Core wherever we can, but even then the use cases are limited at best.
We've never run a Linux server with a GUI.
menace323@reddit
Have you tried the App Compatability pack?
Tymanthius@reddit
I work at an MSP. I prefer my clients to have GUI b/c I don't get to automate much. :/
Stonewalled9999@reddit
In the 2012 days when you could add the role, most of my stuff was core. Now that you can't simply add it we run the gui. Time is valuable and being able to get stuff done quickly with my lower skilled team members is a better fit than "Stone can you do this cuz I dunno how" ?
dustojnikhummer@reddit
Every one of our Windows servers has a desktop, only one Linux one has a desktop.
Dry_Inspection_4583@reddit
Windows only. And I don't even like that, I need a UI 1/24 hrs of operation maybe, not worth the resources.
Shrimp_Dock@reddit
Windows=GUI, Linux=noGUI
ConstructionSafe2814@reddit
Just good old Debian. No need for a Desktop. At most, some of our "servers" sometimes run a Firefox. But not an entire desktop.
cobarbob@reddit
I have never had a linux server with a desktop. I try to do it on windows but there's always an exception or reason to give in and install it with a desktop.
However, mostly I think the reason is that Linux is all files and so with a command line and a text editor you can do pretty much everything. Windows, not so much.
Unexpected_Cranberry@reddit
In general, on Windows I prefer having a GUI on file servers or application servers where the application either has it as a requirement or needs to be supported by an external company. Thye typically flat out to refuse to support you if the server doesn't have a GUI. File servers because managing NTFS permissions, while possible, is a bit annoying from the command line or remote tools.
ElevenNotes@reddit
The best number of servers with desktop experience is: None.
jhjacobs81@reddit
servers should never run a desktop experience, they are not to play with :)
On Windows you have no choice of desktop. you only have the choice of running server with or without desktop experience. On Linux, i prefer KDE. So if i was forced to run a desktop on a server, then KDE would be my goto experience.
Jamdrizzley@reddit
Our company uses Windows desktop experience on everything (about 260 VM servers), but we have no Linux servers with desktop experience. All our Linux servers are application specific or just run containers, and are often built by third parties (or us by instruction) so we don't have to do much with them that we'd need desktop experience