Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
I want to add; MS actively discourages running Windows Server with a GUI. It's meant to be headless and managed by PowerShell.
Yeah, and I'm not here to say Windows Server is always the wrong choice. Windows Server is the champion of directory services, because Active Directory is king. Windows Server can also do neat things like run WSUS and stuff. It has its place. In larger deployments, it's likely typical to run a variety of servers in GUI-less mode, and then have one GUI-equipped install for management.
That being said, my experience is that almost all Windows Server deployments I've found in the field have had the GUI, and have therefore been rather sluggish. It's just part of how it works.
Which IME almost no one does. If you're already going to be interacting with a server solely through a CLI, why not just use Linux on the first place.
Sometimes you're stuck running IIS or SQL Server or the like. Can't think of anything personal I'd have to run on Windows Server, but commercial is another world. In any case, I always ran headless given the option.