What is the best OS?

[ch_123]

Boo-yeah...

[ch_123]

Yeah, I tried using the 'edit' editor that comes with VMS by default, not fun. It didn't seem to take too kindly to the SIMH emulator Im running, and just threw a lot of garbage to the screen when I typed stuff.

Nonetheless, as I am having one of my 'Crazy OS' seasons, I intend messing around with, maybe even to the stage that I can get DECwindows up and running on it.

Supposedly Iarnrod Eireann (the Irish railway operator) had a VAX with VMS up and running for 18 years straight, and was only brought down when they needed to reboot it as part of a Y2K compliance upgrade. Not many OSes can pull something like that off.

[ch_123]

Speaking of VAXen, this has to be one of the most awesome things ever.

[exia]

i like ubuntu. free and powerful and secure. it is taking over the linux market.

[D-EJ915]

Speaking of VAXen, this has to be one of the most awesome things ever.

Show Image

nice lol, SGI made an "Expressigo" out of an Indigo in the same way lol

[microsoft windows]

I remember DEC. They made my computer monitor almost 18 years ago now!

[D-EJ915]

having a DEC monitor doesn't really count lol

[ricercar]

I have a DEC pc. Celebris 590. Nyeah.

Maybe I need to cross-post in "what's your big rig specs"...

[ch_123]

having a DEC monitor doesn't really count lol

This.

[elservo]

I remember Vax!  I recall having to hit enter at the end of each line of my emails because if I just typed continually the terminal would stop responding.

[ironcoder]

Lots of fanboyism in this thread. We're not only bashing other operating systems, we're now bashing different flavors of the same OS.

Not really when you realize Linux is just a kernel. One of the reasons there are hundreds (thousands?) of distros is they really are unique OS.

I'm not going to argue that most of them are that different but some are. That's one of the reasons there are so many, details are important if you really use it.

[ironcoder]

I've always intended on trying a BSD, but never quite got around to it. Which is the best? I hear FreeBSD is a good all rounder, OpenBSD is designed to be secure at the expense of being... usable, and NetBSD is focused on being able to run on anything. How does NetBSD stack against FreeBSD?

I ran all three for years until I finally got tired of multibooting. I think some of the commonly held generalizations aren't accurate, and others if they were, are now stale.

FreeBSD is a great desktop OS. It has tons and tons and TONS of apps in the repository. It's flexible, secure, and robust enough for server use. It runs on a lot of platforms but honestly once you get off x86 it starts to become a pain in the ass. Even the x86_64 support is behind. The installer is a true POS, it's by FAR the worst installer I've ever seen on any platform. In multiboots it has a propensity to set you up for disaster by refusing to map your harddrives and play nice with other OS. On its own the install just sucks. Once you get the base going (and you should really only do a minimal FreeBSD install otherwise it's BLOAT CITY) you start building packages. It takes me 2 full days to get everything I want set up. And I've done it for years.

OpenBSD is perfectly usable, and of all the BSDs I can install OpenBSD and get a desktop up and running in the shortest time. The OpenBSD install is terrifying until you understand it and then it becomes an absolute slam dunk. OpenBSD is fast because it's simple and because it's designed to use prebuilt binary packages. You want Firefox? Just pkg_add it and in about 2 minutes you have Firefox and all the deps. OpenBSD has quirks but it's fun. The community is tough, people can be prima donnas but once you break in it's a good OS. Packages for x86_64 are also more scarce but it's improving.

NetBSD has the best installer of the 3 in the sense that it's simple and gives you very few choices and there's almost no way you can get a bloated install. Pkgsrc, the NetBSD way of building apps is exemplary. Whereas FreeBSD options you to death with so many ways of setting flags and switches, Pkgsrc is clean, has simple options, and best of all is smart enough to try different FTP servers when fetching a package fails. FreeBSD often dies doing this and that makes you have to babysit installs, which I really hate. NetBSD does run on many many platforms but I got to the point where even on x86 and x86_64 I had enough stability problems that I couldn't trust it and finally abandoned it. I think it has a lot of potential and I'll try it again in the future. NetBSD has a lot of packages also, not as many as FreeBSD, but once you get over a few thousand I'm not sure it makes any difference. Just check that everything you need is there to avoid disappointment. At the end of the day you can also build your own packages or just compile and install stuff on any BSD. It can be tough because of the BSD and GNU toolchain duel (damn you, GNU!) but it's usually possible.

All of these OS need a little more love and care than a typical idiot Ubuntu install but they're all very loveable and good OS. Now that you can run anything in a VM without being a multibooting guru (why do my skills become obsolete...?) you should try them all and see which one(s) you like.

[ch_123]

Thanks for the info!

Which NetBSD version did you use? I've heard that NetBSD 5 is miles better than the previous releases.

[ironcoder]

Thanks for the info!

Which NetBSD version did you use? I've heard that NetBSD 5 is miles better than the previous releases.

I can't remember the first version I used but I believe it was around 2005/2006 time frame. I installed 5.0 when it came out hoping for a big change and I was still having problems, usually filesystem related. I have been through so many upgrades and OS testing over the last 2 years I can't remember if I actually went as far as 5.0.1 or not. I think I installed it and then got sidetracked on another project before I got very far.

I ran a NetBSD box pretty steady for 2 or 3 years during that time and it worked fine although I occasionally had problems during startup. If it would start it stayed up. I think it was a bad mobo. Later on I started having it lock up and I believe it was filesystem related but it was becoming too risky so I just abandoned it.

The other interesting thing I should say was I was running a very old Coppermine that should have been set ablaze in MS Window's dungeon years before I bought it off a buddy of mine. I was running my main Slackware desktop on that box. Everything started failing little by little until one day one of the drives seized up and I wasn't able to start the box even though I had an rsync mirror setup. I tried everything I could think of and I couldn't get the sonofa***** to come to life.

I tried booting the FreeBSD and OpenBSD installers but nothing doing. Each one errored out with weird hardware errors and refused to get to a command prompt.

I got out an old NetBSD install disk, booted it and installed a skeleton system in some freespace on the living drive and using the shell I was able to rsync everything off that box onto a laptop and save my whole setup. I don't know how much time it would have taken me to recover all that stuff, it's possible I would have lost years of work and emails, didn't have money at that time for a backup, had 2 CD burners burn up, etc. NetBSD saved my butt that day.

[ch_123]

Nice stuff!

As far as I know, there's some talk amongst the NetBSD folk of getting a ZFS port. Could be a long while before they finish it though.

One of the attractive things about FreeBSD is that it has a load of drivers that the others don't (I'm thinking in particular about WLAN cards and nVidia drivers). Although even FreeBSD is about 5-10 years behind Linux... I read that one of the big new features of FreeBSD 8 is the ability to remove a mounted USB device without causing a kernel panic...

[ironcoder]

I run Solaris 10 and the main reason is ZFS. I shouldn't really say, because I haven't tried to use ZFS under FreeBSD (and I'm not sure you can boot from a ZFS root but maybe you can by now) I really prefer to use technology where it was developed, because that's where it usually has the best support.

I don't feel that FreeBSD is behind Linux at all in drivers. I only had one problem with FreeBSD and I had the same problem with Linux- for a new graphics chipset. They both got the support at about the same time. I'm not saying FreeBSD supports everything, but I think you have to go looking for problems or be somebody who runs weird hardware for spite before you'll get yourself in trouble. That said, I agree nVidia support hasn't been there. I was running FreeBSD up to 7.2 current and I think my chipset was officially supported but honestly it didn't work like it does on Linux. And I believe they only had 32 bit drivers for FreeBSD. Then again, you really can't blame that on FreeBSD, nVidia writes the drivers for them and for Linux.

Amazingly, nVidia's Solaris drivers are incredible. I was really happy to see my weird MCP chipset was supported and the display looks fantastic. The nVidia packages on Solaris are just as excellent as they are for Linux. Top notch stuff.

I haven't looked into NetBSD getting ZFS support, your comment is the first I've heard. One thing I would really like to see in all the BSD is some modern filesystem support, not necessarily ZFS, but at least JFS (which is what I run on my Linux boxes now) and XFS.

[ch_123]

I have OS/390 slowly transporting itself to my laptop in a manner that may/may not be strictly legal.

[8_INCH_FLOPPY]

With your criteria, I'd say Ubuntu is the best.

[microsoft windows]

Windows 3.1 is the best.

[platon]

Any os  based on a posix compliant kernel can be customized to be someones favorite. In other words all unix like oses are good (unix, linux, bsd, mac os x and many many more).

Windows are special thought. There you get no f*cking choice. You can tweek nothing, you never get to see whats under the hood. Plus you get to pay for it. It's like owning a car and not being able to take a look at the machine. That sounds nice.

[quadibloc]

The OS I use is Windows, since it's the one for which the most applications are available. Which one is best? Right now, to me, they all have annoying flaws - and different annoying flaws, at that, to such an extent that I don't feel comfortable identifying any of them as "best".

[Ekaros]

MS-DOS 5.x

For gaming either XP or Win 7... Only thing that realy keeps me on Windows is games and other software(Wine isn't a solution...)

[mike]

Reformatting is unfortunately the lot of pretty much all PC OSes,

Hmm ... I haven't "reformatted" my main desktop since Ubuntu 6something-or-other. O/S upgrades, hard disk upgrades, desktop machine upgrades. No reinstalls or anything.

[mike]

Windows Server editions were also designed to be a server, from NT 3.51 to now.  They have completely different kernels, memory architecture and core components.  They are not the same animal as Windows Desktop systems.  In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.

Having installed Windows 2008 Core, I can tell you that is not the case; you don't get Windows Explorer (i.e. the desktop, menus, etc.) but the "command-line" that starts up is a window in the middle of a gui screen.

[ManjyomeThunder]

Windows 7. Why? Because it's the only commercially supported operating system viable for use by home users on almost any hardware.

You don't have to buy an expensive computer with a special form factor or features you don't even want to use it.

You don't have to tinker around and use the terminal to get things to work how they should to begin with. Oh, and how about that window tear?

No Mac users, your operating system is not "more secure". It is more obscure. If you pay attention to Pwn2Own, you would know that. You're only getting by without antivirus now because nobody gives a ****. Actual "virus" or not, a trojan can affect any system, and the relative lack of them on OS X (as in, they are few) pretty plainly states "You cannot imagine the immensity of the **** I do not give".

No Mac users, your computer is not faster, nor is it more stable. The plural of anecdote is not data, true, but my Windows 7 computers, and everyone's I know are working just fine since launch. It's not statistical, but it's something. Don't like how "Windows is constantly pushing out software updates"? Well, you could wait on ALL updates from service packs and be vulnerable I guess. What are you guys on now, 10.6.4?

No, GNU/Linux users, your operating system is not "free" and you do not own it for use and redistribution under any terms. It still has a license, and for a reason. The GPL restricts you from using it in closed projects. If it were truly "free" you'd have the option to choose not to be with derivative works. It's like rms and the other smelly-basement-dwellers-who-really-need-to-shave are trying to spite non-free (read: gratis) software. Learn to BSD License, or WTFPL.

And furthermore, nobody really gives a **** anyway. Any computer you're going to buy nowadays has an operating system installed, and it isn't Linux. Kinda defeats the point of being "free". And no, it doesn't do anything better for end users. It creates a pain in the ass. Maybe use it as a Live CD for browsing "adult content", so that you don't get infected by "horseporn.avi.exe", even though you really, really deserve to.

TL;DR I'll use Linux when it doesn't suck ass and OS X when I can install it where I ****ing want to and Apple stops with the false advertising.

[mike]

Windows 7. Why? Because it's the only commercially supported operating system viable for use by home users on almost any hardware.

Ah! A reflex "I like Windows so it must be better" bigot. Actually reasonably intelligent non-computing people can cope quite well with Linux on the desktop - a couple of relatives use it and I don't get near as many support calls as you might think. A box of cider every 6 months isn't too bad

All operating systems suck; the one you're used to sucks the least.

[mike]

No, GNU/Linux users, your operating system is not "free" and you do not own it for use and redistribution under any terms. It still has a license, and for a reason. The GPL restricts you from using it in closed projects. If it were truly "free" you'd have the option to choose not to be with derivative works. It's like rms and the other smelly-basement-dwellers-who-really-need-to-shave are trying to spite non-free (read: gratis) software. Learn to BSD License, or WTFPL.

FUD. The LGPL was created to allow the use of GNU software libraries in commercial software after it was pointed out to GNU that the GPL could be interpreted as preventing their use. Using GNU software from within commercial software is perfectly fine; it's only when you start modifying GNU software that you have to provide the source of the modifications you made.

Commercial software has been available under Linux for years without anyone going after them. The most significant "you're breaking the GPL" actions have been against embedded device manufacturers who take Linux, make modifications, and release products based on the result.

Really need to shave ? How else am I going to store morsels of food for later on ? Be reasonable

BTW: Any code I've released (not a whole lot) is either unlicensed or is covered by whatever license the Internet Software Consortium uses (a bit of hacking on the FDDI support for dhcpd).

[Ekaros]

Windows is basicly best for using certain applications, it desing philosophy and user space might not be as safe as it main competitors. Still MAIN reason for it unsafeness is it popularity, just think how many OSX viruses/etc. there would be if it was as wide spreaded as Windows... One other factor is that Linux might have bit better users, not doing always "Oh, it wants to install something, I just write admin password here..."

[ch_123]

In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.

True of classic NT versions, not true of the newer ones.

Funny story about that - when the server version of Windows Vista was being made, MS gathered a team whose job it was was to separate the various underlying components of the Windows OS, one motivation would be to allow a command-line only version of Windows (as it stood, everything was so interwoven and poorly documented that it was impossible to know where the GUI stopped, and the OS begun)

A few years later they're still chugging away. The server versions of Vista and 7 have come and gone, and they even reckon they won't be ready in time for the server version of Windows 8.

[microsoft windows]

Windows are special thought. There you get no f*cking choice. You can tweek nothing, you never get to see whats under the hood. Plus you get to pay for it. It's like owning a car and not being able to take a look at the machine. That sounds nice.

Not Windows 3.1. You can tweak all sorts of things in Windows 3.1. And the whole OS is a free download if you don't got the floppies.

[ch_123]

Windows is basicly best for using certain applications, it desing philosophy and user space might not be as safe as it main competitors. Still MAIN reason for it unsafeness is it popularity, just think how many OSX viruses/etc. there would be if it was as wide spreaded as Windows... One other factor is that Linux might have bit better users, not doing always "Oh, it wants to install something, I just write admin password here..."

Given that something like 60% of the net is hosted on Linux servers (and probably a good deal more hosted on other *nix systems like BSD) you'd think that it would be an even more lucrative target than Windows is.

But yes, end user stupidity is always the key attack vector in any OS.

[mike]

But yes, end user stupidity is always the key attack vector in any OS.

A meatspace buffer overflow ... to dredge up an old phrase

[instantkamera]

Windows 7. Why? Because ...

Because you are afraid to step outside your comfort zone and actually learn new things?

You little synopsis of "what is wrong about the computing world (outside of MS)" is highly:

a) inaccurate

b) hypocritical


Accusing a free OS of not being free because it includes an inalienable right that derivatives also be free is stupid. The license isn't perfect, but your argument is pointless because:

a) you are arguing "freeness" while using a completely proprietary platform (WTF??),

b) It is well within you right to close your project if it runs ON linux, as long as it is not PART OF linux (and FYI, that is the Kernel, nothing more). It's called having your cake and eating it too. That's how us smelly-basement-dwellers-who-really-need-to-shave make our money.


You argument against OSX is conflicted. Here's my summary:

"OSX users, your OS is not more secure... but no one gives a ****, so until they do, your OS WILL be more secure."

Ok, so what is the issue? The lack of exploits for a given OS IS a selling point. Should that change in the future, then it would no longer BE a selling point. This is not rocket science.

an example:

Tiny Tim and Richy Rich both hang out on the playground at recess, and there happens to be a lot of bullies on this playground.

Both kids are huge pussies, and are easy targets for the bullies. However, the bullies only care about money (market share) and they find out that Richy Rich  is aptly named, so they pick on him exclusively.

Tiny Tim is sitting there keeping his 2 cents to himself, knowing they could easily take his **** too, and the only thing stopping them is that they are happy to plunder Richy's Riches day in and day out. Should Tiny Tim acquire such a fortune himself, he might also become the target, but until then, does he care? Nope, as long as he's not getting his ass kicked every single day by the mean bullies.

Which one would you rather be?

And furthermore, nobody really gives a **** anyway. Any computer you're going to buy nowadays has an operating system installed, and it isn't Linux.

Yes, people do give a ****.
As for computers coming with an OS, well, most of mine don't (because I build them myself), and I do care, so I put linux on them. Some netbooks come with linux on them, and a WHOLE load of smartphones are using "linux".

Kinda defeats the point of being "free"

Maybe you don't understand the "point of being free". I can assure you that it is not to spend you days lamenting the use of one free license over the other to the point of never actually using anything...

[Ekaros]

Given that something like 60% of the net is hosted on Linux servers (and probably a good deal more hosted on other *nix systems like BSD) you'd think that it would be an even more lucrative target than Windows is.

But yes, end user stupidity is always the key attack vector in any OS.

BTW, how often Windows based servers are compromised? If you don't count social-engineering...

[ch_123]

I'm not 100% sure on security, but they sure as hell aren't reliable as *nix systems. The London Stock Exchange found that out the hard way.

[Ekaros]

I'm not 100% sure on security, but they sure as hell aren't reliable as *nix systems. The London Stock Exchange found that out the hard way.

Anyway for real reliability you don't use Linux, but a proper propierity system. Also, for something like banking, telco and stock exhange I wouldn't even go for Linux, but get something even more HC...

[didjamatic]

Having installed Windows 2008 Core, I can tell you that is not the case; you don't get Windows Explorer (i.e. the desktop, menus, etc.) but the "command-line" that starts up is a window in the middle of a gui screen.

There are many reasons for 2008 Core, if you're hung up on what the command "window" looks like, you're missing the boat entirely.  

The best OS is secure, has vast driver support and for the most part anymore just has to deliver a capable browser to an end user.  The OS is less relevant every year for home use.  For business use there is only 1 practical desktop OS for large scale networks - Windows.  For small companies and some other scenarios, Linux can be a viable option, but not usually.  Apple OS's can be good for home users and some niches in business, but they are generally a luxury.  They were practically dead until the stroke of creativity and luck in the iPod and thank goodness because they have driven everything forward.  (And I love my iphone)   What is the best OS?  It depends on what you'll do with it, but for the most part, it doesn't matter anymore.

[keyboardlover]

Both Windows and Linux have advantages and disadvantages. I don't think at this moment in time there is any 'one best OS'. I think Windows 7 is an excellent OS; but it got that way by copying a lot of functionality from Linux (the new UI is based on KDE, the new filesystem is based on Linux, etc.). Problems that have existed and still exist with Windows today are security issues (because of its architecture, the registry, etc.) Ubuntu (and its variants) on the other hand, I think, are some of the best Linux distributions around. It's copied off Windows in some cases, in making itself more user-friendly via package management GUIs and allowing you to use Windows software (Wine). Yet it still has disadvantages; the GUI is not as user friendly as Windows 7 and much of the functionality isn't either (for example, setting resolutions on external monitors). However its architecture is designed for better security, though it is still susceptible to viruses (just not as likely).

As these OSes continue to copy each other, the ending best OS will probably be some kind of hybrid between the two.

[ch_123]

I think you're in turn missing the point of a command line OS - ditching the GUI element reduces complexity, which in turn reduces potential security and unreliability issues. You also have to consider the waste of system resources used to bring up a GUI whose only purpose is to show a command line. Then you have to have some sort of video hardware in the server, which is only going to add to cost and energy consumption... not by a huge amount, but nontheless.

At the end of the day, Microsoft's inability to create a modern version of Windows that can boot into a proper command line only environment shows how bad their handling of the OS' development is.

[keyboardlover]

I think you're in turn missing the point of a command line OS - ditching the GUI element reduces complexity, which in turn reduces potential security and unreliability issues. You also have to consider the waste of system resources used to bring up a GUI whose only purpose is to show a command line. Then you have to have some sort of video hardware in the server, which is only going to add to cost and energy consumption... not by a huge amount, but nontheless.

At the end of the day, Microsoft's inability to create a modern version of Windows that can boot into a proper command line only environment shows how bad their handling of the OS' development is.

The GUI is how most people interact with the OS so it's arguably the most important part of the OS. User-interaction is what makes or breaks software. Also, people only use the Linux or Windows command line when they have to. I use the Linux command line more often than the Windows command line - but only because I have to. (Mainly because the package management GUI sucks!) Command lines are becoming less and less important IMHO.

[mike]

There are many reasons for 2008 Core, if you're hung up on what the command "window" looks like, you're missing the boat entirely.

I was pointing out that in fact Core 2008 does in fact have a GUI. And in fact people are writing gui tools to make administrating Core 2008 easier(!).

There is in fact just a couple of reasons (very good ones) for running Core 2008. Firstly it decreases the attack surface by reducing the amount of software that comes installed by default. Secondly by reducing the resource requirements for the base operating system, it decreases the amount of resources wasted in virtualised environments.

Or in other words, don't try teaching your grandfather to suck eggs.

[ch_123]

We're talking about the server versions of Windows. GUIs don't really exist in the server world outside of Windows... And even then, MS is making a big push with their "PowerShell" stuff.

[instantkamera]

The GUI is how most people interact with the OS so it's arguably the most important part of the OS. User-interaction is what makes or breaks software. Also, people only use the Linux or Windows command line when they have to. I use the Linux command line more often than the Windows command line - but only because I have to. (Mainly because the package management GUI sucks!) Command lines are becoming less and less important IMHO.

I think you are wrong. I have much use for a command line. save for photo/video editing and graphical web browsing, it is where I spend a large amount of my time. Command line tools have the benefit of being far more efficient to use, IF you know how to use them properly. Even if I use a graphical UI, I prefer that it doesn't get in the way of the graphical application I am running. Im not a HUGE fan of tiling window managers, but openbox-style minimal is my preference.

Also, windows 7 is a very usable platform, regardless of how much of a linux zealot I may appear to be.

[keyboardlover]

We're talking about the server versions of Windows. GUIs don't really exist in the server world outside of Windows... And even then, MS is making a big push with their "PowerShell" stuff.

Even then, I've set up server-side software on Windows Server 2008 (and previous versions) without using (or barely using) the command line at all. Sure, in the VB6 and COM days you had to use it a lot, but it just seems like it's becoming less important.

[keyboardlover]

I think you are wrong. I have much use for a command line. save for photo/video editing and graphical web browsing, it is where I spend a large amount of my time. Command line tools have the benefit of being far more efficient to use, IF you know how to use them properly. Even if I use a graphical UI, I prefer that it doesn't get in the way of the graphical application I am running. Im not a HUGE fan of tiling window managers, but openbox-style minimal is my preference.

Also, windows 7 is a very usable platform, regardless of how much of a linux zealot I may appear to be.

What command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis? And also, you had to take time to LEARN how to use that stuff. The average user doesn't want to do that. They want to be able to do their tasks in the most efficient way possible. That's why the GUI is the most important. Does command line software sell anymore? No way!

[ch_123]

Even then, I've set up server-side software on Windows Server 2008 (and previous versions) without using (or barely using) the command line at all. Sure, in the VB6 and COM days you had to use it a lot, but it just seems like it's becoming less important.

Automation and simple remote access are the primary advantages of the command line, especially when you're dealing with a few dozen servers. Then there are the aforementioned issues with security and system resource usage. Besides, when you learn command line utilities, they tend to be an awful lot quicker than playing around with GUI tools. And if you're dealing with large amounts of servers, you will almost certainly go off and learn how to use them.

Bare in mind that Windows server really doesn't exist outside of providing services to Windows desktops.

[microsoft windows]

I'm just gonna stick with Windows because I like it. End of story.

[HaaTa]

What command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis?

Hmm, lemme see:

vim
core-utils
netcfg
bash/zsh
htop
ssh
mount
ncmpcpp
dropbox
git
gcc
cmake
mplayer
screen
irssi

Graphical (only one that I use daily):
chromium/uzbl

[mike]

The GUI is how most people interact with the OS so it's arguably the most important part of the OS.

The best GUI in the world sitting on a rotten foundation will merely hint at how useful it would be on a proper foundation. All parts of an operating system are important to ensure the function of the machine works properly.

If you've been on recent Microsoft server training courses, it is noticeable just how much the command-line is emphasised. Whilst desktop users may never want to see the command-line, it isn't going away - indeed it seems to be rising in importance with Microsoft insisting that server admins have to know the command-line.

Part of the reason for that is that with a command-line control-able operating system, you can prepare changes in advance and reduce the amount of disruption in a 'change window'. As an example - using a horrible mixture of Unix shell and Windows command-line because I can't knock out PowerShell off the top of my head just yet - how about adding a a new DNS zone to multiple DNS secondaries :-

Code: [Select]

for server in dns0 dns1 dns2 dns3 dns4 dns5 dns6
do
  winrs -r:http://$server "dnscms /zoneadd foo.example.com /secondary 10.0.0.12"
done

Not 100% sure of the dnscmd syntax either - what I was doing on Friday was pretty much the same, but with BIND secondaries. This sort of thing is likely to be far quicker than doing it all through the GUI, and far more testable with a non-production network.

I prefer GUIs for casual stuff - reading email, browsing the web, knocking up trivial documents; in some ways I prefer it for server work too - a GUI is far less skull sweat. But I'm too professional to take the easy way out - I'm employed to do stuff for servers in a way that increases availability, and if that means I should be doing stuff at the command-line, then that's what I'll do.

The command-line way may appear to slow things down on the server side when doing one-off things. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; slowing down lets the unconscious think "Hey! Wait a second, this is a stupid idea!" - hopefully before you've gotten far enough to break something.

[instantkamera]

What command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis? And also, you had to take time to LEARN how to use that stuff. The average user doesn't want to do that. They want to be able to do their tasks in the most efficient way possible. That's why the GUI is the most important. Does command line software sell anymore? No way!

vi/vim, ssh, screen, less, sqsh/isql/psql, tcpdump, top, free (grep, cat, df, du, awk, echo, w/who, ping, ls).

Brackets indicate ones I use extensively with BASH for scripting purposes.

I write stuff in python, in vim, to be run via command line.

I use proprietary diagnostic tools too (omreport,hpacucli etc).

and a whole host of in-house stuff for my job (which sells, believe it or not).

Yes I had to learn it all, that's why Im a nerd. End users can use whatever they want.