Text Mode vs. GUI

Just curious as to how many dedicated servers (of any kind) out there run purely in text mode versus graphical mode (obviously with various degrees of text use).

Why anyone should want graphic on a server?
There are too many other processes to use RAM and CPU.

I agree; it makes sense to use text mode in order to place minimal load on the computer, but I have heard some people refer to using a GUI for their servers and wondered how many people out there do it.

I have a gui installed, I used it for a bit, but for all practical purposes I use pure text. I've changed the init boot level now to just go into command prompt. If I ever do start the gui, its to use the command prompt consoles... >.<

I am forcing myself to use only text mode on my home fileserver, but I'm not 100% comfortable with it yet. For example, it would have been much easier to be able to use QTParted when mounting drives. But I'm sure it'll get easier as I keep practicing.


sleepy

Where I work, a lot of the servers actually run X11R6. Our programmers like to use graphical dev tools that they access with Exceed. Some developpers, however, use Emacs and do not need X11.

On the machines that we (admins) use, though, everything is managed on the command-line through OpenSSH. No graphical tools!

I use both. It's a ltsp/nfs/smb/print server. I usually boot into the GUI and use the command line for administrative tasks. But for LTSP, i.e. the user control panel, I don't know of any other thatn the GUI one. BTW, this server pretty much runs itself, and schould anyone need to make changes when I'm not arround, the GUI should be more inuitive for them.

No GUI on a server. Running a GUI there is foolish in the extreme. There is no reason to do it outside of laziness. I would suspect that is another avenue for people trying to develop linux virii to attack. No GUI and no unnecessary root use!

Peace,
JimBass