Slashdot Mirror
Do You Get a UNIX Workstation at Work?
Fished asks: "This may be a selfish question, but so far as I can tell it hasn't been asked before. I'm currently a Solaris System Engineer in a Very Large Company. This Very Large Company has predictably standardized on Windows as their corporate desktop. However, they are also of the opinion that nobody needs anything -but- Windows on their desktop. If you're a UNIX/Linux systems engineer/administrator in a large company, do they give you a desktop for the platform you manage? Do you have any tips on justifying your need for a second, UNIX-based desktop to the powers that be?"
"While Windows may be a truth for most employees, as a System Engineer I find that my productivity is much lower when I am forced to use Windows on my desktop. I spend way too much time overcoming the ways in which Windows is just different from UNIX, and not enough time getting my job done. Loading Solaris X86 is not an option, since we are required to use a bunch of software that is Windows only (much of it sloppily written, IE only internal websites, with fun things like ActiveX controls.) VmWare works, but is certainly less than ideal."
You don't need a "Workstation", you need a "Test Box". A workstation is an overpriced desktop used to make trouble. A test box is an inexpensive server used to prevent trouble. Aside from the label, they are identical, but it makes all the difference to the bureaucrats.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
So you need to first come up with a good reason or reasons as to why a Windows desktop doesn't work for you.
That's a very backwards approach to getting work done.
Let your users list the tools with which they work most effectively. Then you cross tools off the list if and only if you have a very good reason or reasons to not provide those tools.
"We provide Windows because we are a Windows shop" really is the tail wagging the dog.
Werd. Too many people in this world ask, nah beg, for permission to do things where if they were to just do it, no-one would care.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't like it because it makes me less productive and I feel crippled when there is a fire to put out.
Don't take my awk and perl and even gedit and vi. I work as a Unix admin for a small ISP and the Linux on the desktop is invaluable.
For auditing e-mail directories, writing scripts to parse the output of a mysql script, using scp to bounce files all over the place, working with tarballs, wget to see what
a web page is really made of in an instant... making expect scripts for the few ancient internal Cisco things, snmptools to fetch all kinds of things
and use them in scripts. I could go on and on.. Ohh... and I use dig and whois all the time!
All in all, I am much more productive when I can do all these things quickly on the command line in 6 terminals at once rather then use Putty, WinSCP, Teraterm even Cygwin. I've tried this and I like Windows right. Just not for being a sysadmin.
Well, it's funny, the corporation prohibits you from installing and using FREE software in an area where you really won't be affecting any one else.
It's not like they have to support it. I guess that would irk me. But still, you do have a point, you do what you are told and roll with the changes. I guess I'm just lucky.
He's a Solaris developer. The software he wants is Solaris, as closely configured to his servers as possible. The servers are 64-bit SPARC machines? He needs to develop on a 64-bit SPARC machine. They're using Solaris 9.2? He wants Solaris 9.2.
Yes, he could use ssh for all that, but in most cases, it is much more convenient to work locally than remotely.
At my job, I do C# development. I could use Mono on Linux for that, and I would prefer to have a solid OS like Linux, but it's being deployed on Windows. Therefore I use Windows to develop it. It's a matter of using the appropriate tools for the task at hand.