So why did it fails ?

So why did it fails ?

Attached: Windows server.png (750x320, 6.19K)

Because windows are insecure by design

>So why did it fails ?
This happens only in freetard dreams.

because
>bloat: the OS

it does exactly what its supposed to
linux is better for big high performance public facing shit, but it's vastly outnumbered in total installs because windows is much better for the internal servers of your average business and things like that

>windows ultimate with more firewalls on top of normal firewalls the OS
I was in a company and we were looking for good servers, price was not an issue, but we needed something that we could install in our racks without much hassle, something that gave you an admin password that could be managed onsite, so we decided to go for windows server 2012 and then we tested windows server 2016, both OSs consumed a lot of fucking memory, everything had to be done through the fucking GUI, but we needed to have the servers in a different room, but since it's windows, you needed to have the fucking monitor, so it was just a pain in the ass, it didn't come with ssh by default, you had to connect to the "windows network", so we just dropped it.

When Windows Nano (windows without gui) we had already picked ubuntu server, so we lost interest completely in windows.

but it didn't fail

Attached: 1479752428848.gif (250x251, 521.22K)

> you need a per core license for each server racking up to $10k for a middle sized company
> loads your boxen at idle
> gui bloat when real sysadmins only need remote shell access
> update hell
> linux has native docker support
> hard to provision
So you need a few win server boxen to run a wsus server and an ad, but the rest of them should be linux

>what is mstsc
>what is rsat
>what is remote powershell

because windows is an end-user os by design