|
Cornelius Henning wrote: I love this story!
I don't think it's exactly true. 
http://calleam.com/WTPF/wp-content/uploads/articles/DIABaggage.pdf[^]
The company hired to create the baggage system was BAE Systems - a huge multinational corporation of over 80,000 employees - not an affirmative action charity case.
The problems at DIA were way more than software and the ultimate "solution" was not hiring a competent software company - they reverted to a "manual" system that still runs today.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! I told the story the way it was told to me.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
This is the way government eventually fails.
New guy: "Hello, I'm new here."
Incumbent: "Great, this is the way we run things, as it was relayed to me."
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Traditionally, I've been a Linux/Shell/Bash disliker. I had completely grown up on Windows. The last thing I loved on a black screen was DOS. Though I still use Windows Command prompt, and those techie C# Console tools I write. 
The windows chain of tools & utils has been so productive with drag n drops,click-clucks.
Now unfortunately I'd been often forced to look into Linux 
I had suffered enough because of my Linux-ignorance, losing some of our valuable customers.
(Yes we should ideally hire a Linux admin, we have that in the To-Do for an year.)
Linux environment, I simply couldn't take it. It brings so much fatigue to the brain if I'm continuously traversing like, Okay to do this, do that. To do that, install this. to install this, install that. For that, type this. And finally I realize, what I have is a bare naked system. And every damn thing has to be manually set up. How unproductive this is.
It's a total fatigue. May be it's because I've identified myself too much with windows and nothing else. I don't know.
Now I'm at a point to give it a try again. I believe I can Sit down and learn all those things that I see on a dry linux Book. I believe I can still do with so much eye sore.
The question is, is that any worth? Or the linux world is by any chance moving towards GUI, click-cluck direction. I've seen ubuntu desktops and got some sigh of relief- okay, may be it's time we learn some linux stuff! (with mouse)
but what I'm talking about is Server. you think, Linux _SERVER_ . Is this always going to need Shell commands expertise. Will there be something like remote-desktop, Click to deploy etc coming up.
If Linux is just going to stay with Shell prompt and commands, and nothing new coming up, then I should give a try again. this never ending story...
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look I think you maybe surprised, its moved along a lot since you last used it in, I would guess the early 1990's.
Start with the Ubuntu desktop distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. but I'm asking about Server editions.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: If Linux is just going to stay with Shell prompt and commands, and nothing new coming up, then I should give a try again. this never ending story...
Well... I work for a company quite uptodate and innovating (technologically speaking) and I have to do with Linux Console servers and some web based apps that helps the other people, but through console I can do more things and even some tricks that are not possible using the click-tools.
I started with linux around 18 months ago and I am far from being an expert, that's why I am very careful and don't do things where I am not sure about the result... but it is not bad as I thought before starting and have already built some things where people working there longer have told "nice"
In my opinion... interfaces as Ubuntu are fine for private users, but I don't think is going to get into Server side so fast, they still need a lot console to be configured, changed, secured and other staff.
If that is enough for you to start learning it or not... is another question.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: Is this always going to need Shell commands expertise.
Yes. And editing (in a text editor) whatever obscure configuration "language" your particular choice of server poison is, often several, as typical configurations have multiple pieces "working together."
Vunic wrote: Will there be something like remote-desktop, Click to deploy etc coming up.
My suggestion:
Create a VM of a baseline system, get it configured the way you want, and clone it to replicate it elsewhere. I suppose Docker might be useful for that.
But:
Document every step you take! Every shell command you enter. Every configuration change you make.
When you've done it once, start from a clean slate again and try to replicate those steps.
When you've successfully replicated the setup, put the steps into a .sh file, start from a clean slate again, and run the .sh file and see if it works.
Keep a journal of useful commands, creating a quick reference guide for yourself.
Hiring a Linux admin is great, but they tend to be biased, they don't document anything, and the next admin will complain about how stupid the previous admin was. If you hire a Linux admin, make him document, make him test his scripts, make him prove his scripts work. (I don't know any "her" Linux admins, so forgive my bias there.)
Think of a Linux admin as a black box that you need to "unit test."
Linux desktops suck. All of them. You will find yourself using the shell because the desktop UI doesn't provide what you need to do, and is klunkier than the shell, hard to believe!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You are a pragmatic cpian. Reminds me of Chris@(Christopher Duncan, I'm not sure if he's active here) Thanks for the wonderful reply. I'll keep them in mind for sure.
Marc Clifton wrote: Document every step you take! Every shell command you enter. Every configuration change you make
This is unbelievably needed. For every command, I google, type it, something runs and I move away from it. This has been a major problem in grasping the commands. I didn't seem to store them in my mind as it was just running out of a copy paste. (Linux' copy-paste : See through your sore, naked eye and type it again through your sore naked eye + 10 naked fingers)
Marc Clifton wrote: I don't know any "her" Linux admins, so forgive my bias there
So true. 
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: and I move away from it.
history has saved my arse a few times trying to remember what I did.
But yeah, I started that way too--type something, it worked, move on. Then I realized, crap, I have no idea how I got the system working.
The next step, which I still have to take, is to actually read the documentation for that obtuse command I found on SO.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Document every step you take! Every shell command you enter. Every configuration change you make.
Damned good advice. I've several times managed to configure things in linux, but then never been able to find how I did it.
Marc Clifton wrote: When you've successfully replicated the setup, put the steps into a .sh file, start from a clean slate again, and run the .sh file and see if it works.
... And then build a little GUI for it, with buttons and places to enter values...
... Oh, wait! That would go completely against the principles of linux!
Instead, split it up into 368 smaller files, distributed all over the HDD, that you have to edit manually, and which are then assembled by a map file that needs fifteen frameworks to run.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Instead, split it up into 368 smaller files, distributed all over the HDD, that you have to edit manually, and which are then assembled by a map file that needs fifteen frameworks to run.
At which point you can claim the title "Linux admin."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Document every step you take! Every shell command you enter. Every configuration change you make
That's the best idea. This way you create a methodology to the entire thing and it makes it far more memorable too. And, this way you can document things you did try but decided against.
Great stuff!!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep! The desktops all suck in Linux. Bash is obscure but well worth learning. Almost everything can be scripted but be very careful 
Coming from a "I hate Linux" background I can understand your trepidation. The main issue here is familiarity. Who knows, you might get to like it...
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, see, Linux is amazing, because you can dig down into the innards of the machine and rearrange/reconfigure anything you want!
On the other hand, Linux is annoying as hell, because you HAVE TO dig down into the innards of the machine, and rearrange/reconfigure EVERYTHING to make it work properly.
Ubuntu (et al) make the desktop side much simpler, but yeah, the server side is still a pain.
I think what they really need is a decent command-line text editor. I look at that whole war between VI and Emacs, and honestly, I hate both of them. I don't want to memorize a whole new language of keyboard shortcuts just to edit a text file. I just want the equivalent of Notepad. When I was using Linux heavily, my go-to text editor was Pico. It just worked. Simple. Quick. Easy.
Sorry, tangential rant there... But yeah... Linux is a pain. It's powerful, but that power has a price. That's the reason I have two Linux boxes at home (One repurposed desktop, one Raspberry Pi), but never actually use them... Windows is just simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: Sorry, tangential rant there
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: I look at that whole war between VI and Emacs, and honestly, I hate both of them.
Agree 100%!
I stumbled upon leafpad (Leafpad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] ) on my RPi Raspbian and was very happy. Not sure all the places it is easily available though.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried wearing a Fedora?
|
|
|
|
|
This?[^]
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I started with Unix in the early 90's. It was several years before Windows hit my desk.
That said there is a lot more that can be done with the command line than with a GUI. In Linux, the difference is substantial, in Windows not so much but there are still things that have to be done via the command line in Windows.
As I was reading through the responses here it occurred to me that this article[^]on CP might help you get started with Linux, even though it is a coding article.
To me, it seems that Linux might be the C of operating systems. It is very powerful but you have to do everything. Windows might be more like C#, where Microsoft has done everything for you, you only have to put the 'commands' in some type of order.
Personally, I believe all programmers should be familiar with the guts of a PC. Hardware, software and operating systems, not an expert mind you, but the more you know about the how and the why the better coder you are.
Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.
|
|
|
|
|
Just one thing suddenly felt cool is, Linux , out of the box for server is bare naked. You are clear on what's there and what's not. It felt like a dedicated System (without OS). I think if one learns it well, it might be really good. In windows, I always felt I had this deal "Okay trojans, we can co-exist, but don't get evil and destroy something so critical,okay?". I always have a feeling I'm not alone in my Windows desktops. Linux felt like I'm on vacuum.  Super clean.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Linux is not meant for a GUI. Anyone who has gone through the pain of setting up a desktop environment on it from scratch can tell you that. Yes, there are decent desktops out there (Gnome is almost professional feeling), but CLI is the name of the game.
If you want to ease into it, start trying to migrate some of your normal workload to PowerShell. Under the hood there is more in common between Linux and Windows than there are differences (is the registry an /etc directory? The case can be argued). This can really help remind you of the power that CLI brings to the table in an environment where you can sanity-check yourself.
Just do yourself a favor and use nano for text editing. If you have never used vi (or haven't in a couple decades) it will make you want to strangle the nearest person. I will happily sit and wait for the flames for that advice.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
You can install Linux with a GUI, and you can install it without a GUI. Without is typically referred to as "server", and with a GUI is typically referred to as "desktop". There may be some tuning that's done between desktop and server versions these days, but its usually the same kernel underneath both. If you install it without a GUI, then you absolutely need to have command line experience to get the box set up. If you install it with the GUI, then there's, well, a GUI to help you. You can add the GUI to a server install, and probably uninstall a GUI from a desktop install.
Since you're coming from the sticky-clicky world of Windows, I recommend you put the GUI on the box while you're getting started, otherwise linux is a steep learning curve.
I don't know much about where Linux has gone recently, but back in the day, all the GUIs were based on X-Windows, which was by-design essentially a remote desktop solution -- you just ran both ends on the same box. This meant that you had your choice -- did you remote the entire desktop like the MS Windows remote desktop solution where the applications for that machine are captive to that desktop, or did you remote individual GUI applications so you could mix applications from both machines seamlessly on your desktop. Text could even be copy and pasted seamlessly between applications from both machines.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Console workflows aren't that bad, as long as the tools offer discoverability. You know, the possibility to learn as you go instead of having to search the web for tutorials. The Linux world sure as hell isn't moving towards GUI-centricism, neither towards compatbility of any sorts. Binary compatibility even in user space is questionable, in kernel space it's a lottery win if it happens. Compatibility of settings is questionable too. Ever patched Apache and found that your setup goes FUBAR because a minor update broke something? That isn't a rare thing to happen, that sucks. IIS at least keeps a clean state between minor updates and still works mostly without any further babysitting after major updates.
This won't ever happen on Linux.
Console workflows themselves are, as I said, not bad. While I'm not a fan of writing scripts for everyhting, mostly because escaping every. Single. String is a major PITA, I write my C# tools in console form every now and then. Besides, Windows' Powershell is awesome!
Linux' bash, while powerful too, lacks loads of things Powershell has. Starting with an actually helpful help system (bash's help is mostly notes from people who already know for themselves, not a way to get started) and it's reliance on strings for everything makes piping, once again, a major PITA. Also, while it's powerfull, it's still suffering from the same illness as Windows' CMD, it has evolved over time and consistency wasn't a high priority during all those years.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
