10 Dos and Don'ts To Make Sysadmins' Lives Easier
CowboyRobot writes "Tom Limoncelli has a piece in 'Queue' summarizing the Computer-Human Interaction for Management of Information Technology's list of how to make software that is easy to install, maintain, and upgrade. FTA: '#2. DON'T make the administrative interface a GUI. System administrators need a command-line tool for constructing repeatable processes. Procedures are best documented by providing commands that we can copy and paste from the procedure document to the command line.'"
10 is an even number. There's no duplicates. None of them are filler.
I don't understand how this happened.
Did someone plan this before they wrote it? What gives?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
It's a top-10 list that actually has insightful information on how to do software right, instead of being a random collection of ten things to make a fluff article. Bonus points for being things that I actually agree with.
The article author is also behind The Practice of System and Network Administration, truly an excellent text into the practicalities of work in IT.
If you want to make a sysadmin's life easier (as if any programmer ever wants to do that), you can start by making your error and status messages 1.) plentiful and 2.) easy to understand. Also, provide several logging levels so we can drill down as needed, and make sure the logging levels are meaningful. Too many programmers put just two log levels: one which shows nothing useful, and another that spews out indecipherable hex dumps of every call it makes.
Face up to the fact that no matter how awesome your software is, it's going to fail. Not only that, but it's going to fail in ways you never thought possible at the worst possible times. Make sure we have enough information to figure out what happened. Otherwise, stuff like this happens:
Program: *crash for no apparent reason*
Sysadmin: Why did you crash?
Program: Because something went wrong.
Sysadmin: What went wrong?
Program: Something.
Sysadmin: I need more detail. Increasing log level.
Program: Something bad went wrong.
Sysadmin: I need more than that. Increasing log level again.
Program: Fuck you. Here's a 16GB hex dump of system memory. Figure it out yourself jackass.
Sysadmin: *picks up a crowbar and goes off to find the programmer*
Don't make me use a real browser to click all the way through your site, make me agree to a stupid set of conditions for using the software, and then provide my browser with a cookie that it can subsequently use to download your software; when my browser is on one continent and the machine that wants the software is on another continent; you ass-fucks...
> DO have a configuration file that is an ASCII file, not a binary blob.
And by ASCII we mean something that can be edited by any editor.
XML is the equivalent of a binary blob when you are up to your ass in alligators trying to get things working again with minimal tools available.
...if the GUI is well done and complements command line.. Some tasks actually ARE much better performed with Point&Click.
One example of a "good" GUI that I use a lot is the ASDM for Cisco ASA firewalls. Most of the simpler admin tasks are in fact *faster* via ASDM. If you have your network objects all properly set up and you need to add a firewall rule, it's far simpler to select it from a list (actually, in this case it's a combobox - just type first few letters to filter your choices and then click) than typing that stuff in manually. Packet tracer to check the rules is much nicer to use via the GUI. Setting up VPN profiles is simpler via ASDM. Handling network object groupings is simpler via ASDM.
Editing access-lists, doing routing configuration and most of the more "rudimentary" tasks are still something I do via command line, though.
I thought they just followed Jesus around.......
BM3
8. [...] Similarly, use the operating system's built-in authentication system and standard I/O systems.
This can be a bad thing if your application runs on a platform whose built-in authentication is a nickel-and-dime revenue stream for the platform's publisher. Microsoft Windows Server is like this: each user account on the built-in authentication system requires a Client Access License.
Feel free to make a GUI for the administrative interface, but not at the expense of an underlying CLI.
There are two ways to do this: have your GUI call the CLI when necessary, or use a common API behind both. Other methods will lead to bitrot in one of the interfaces, most likely the CLI.
GUIs are fine and even enjoyable to a certain extent, but the author is right that the CLI takes priority.
No, I'm sorry, it is not correct. Sysadmins don't have lives.
In reference to point 8, this is something I wrote I while ago after dealing with several Windows apps that either horribly abused the Eventlog or refused to use it entirely:
Do not assume that your software is running with elevated access... (root/administrator)
A GUI is NOT fine for administering a broken system over a slow link to the other side of the world.
I used to remotely administer a set of servers in the middle east. The bandwidth was tiny, and the latency was insane. I would type a command out, then take a sip of coffee while waiting to see it displayed before hitting "enter." I had to use a GUI for one application, and it took over 40 minutes to fire up and display on my machine.
Mandatory (and well-designed) GUIs should be for using an application, not administering or installing it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I wonder if there are forums on the Web where plumbers shit all over eachother.
Bullish Machine Tzar
I disagree,
take any person of reasonable intelligence and place them in an unfamiliar settting. They become retarded.
The fact that they have been in front of that unfamiliar device for 20 years means they just don't care.
Give me a user who cares to familiarize them-self with the system and 6 months, I'll give you a half decent sysadmin. At least better than half of the paper certified MCSE's I've had the pleasure to work with.
Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.