What BASH and SSH Mean for Windows Systems Administration
-
@pdearmen said:
Remote management through winrm is a reality and many many admins use it. It is those admins that refuse to use it that are becoming extinct - because most people realize that doing things the old manual way is a waste of time and resources.
I agree that they will become extinct, that's the point of this article. but I do not agree, from observation of thousands of Windows admins across the field, the old way is still heavily entrenched and the culture is so deep and socially accepting of being a waste of time that Microsoft has to push hard to change this.
-
@pdearmen said:
The linux subsystems will be great - for managing linux devices.
Will it? Maybe, but I don't see it as being better than Putty at that point. Putty is so good and the WLS is just... a really heavy Putty really. I mean there are some features that would be nice, but boy are they trivial.
-
@pdearmen said:
Oh and the SSH capabilities that were being touted about - that is a powershell feature in server 2016 (and powershell 5.1) as well.
So, this is a guess, wouldn't the lack of BASH integration into Windows and SSH in PS mean that PS would be the way to manage Linux from Windows?
-
@pdearmen said:
There are a few things wrong with powershell but complex no. All commands are always in the form of verb-noun, and on all commands you can always use get-help to see the syntax and examples of the command. What the author fails to realize is that everything returned from the shell (even though it looks like text) is an object.
How did "the author" miss that everthing is an object when that was actually part of the point? I didn't just not miss it, it was part of the theme.
BASH is simpler because it has a better interface design. It returns what it shows, no trickery. PS returns an object but shows text. Get a screen of text and try to parse it and the parser doesn't work. That's basic flawed user interface design. It's not intuitive and the visual output does not match the real output.
-
I don't disagree that the object model is more powerful, something again that I have been pointing out (so could not have missed it.) But more powerful here also increases the barrier to entry and makes it that much harder for the Windows culture to adapt to. Hence, again, the article.
-
@pdearmen I think that we agree on all but one point. I think you misunderstood the article and took it to mean I didn't understand PowerShell but then you went on to basically repeat the foundation of the article.
What we differ on is.... the current state of Windows culture. You point to Microsoft's behaviour, but I point to Windows Admin in the field.
The culture of the admin space is influenced by, but not determined by, Microsoft. Microsoft has been trying to do good things for a long time, like I've stated repeatedly. But the culture of Windows users in the field does not mimic this. Certainly some have adapted, but many?
Between daily conversations in places like Spiceworks (which has much higher "new poster" turnover than here) shows that almost no one uses these tools in the SMB space and first hand experience in the MSP and consulting space supports this - I've yet to come upon a shop that uses PS beyond where it is absolutely required. Are they out there? Of course. We have PS people on staff. But for the average Windows Admin this is so rare I've almost never met one in the field, yet meet many thousands of Windows Admins.
Surprisingly, I've found more often Linux people doing PowerShell for their Windows counterparts, still rare, but I've seen this more often than I've seen Windows Admins using PowerShell themselves.
I've worked with large Wall St. investment firms that were very Windows-focused shops, with $200K+ Windows Admins across the board and none used PS and when the UNIX teams asked about the use of tools like RSAT the team actually didn't even know that Microsoft had remote management toolsets like that!
Working on Wall St. and consulting with a large number of companies and doing an incredible amount of online consulting and working with posters - probably the most of any consultant in the field... I have yet to have someone running GUI-less in the wild. Real world, massive level "survey", the culture just isn't doing it. And this includes systems set up and built by Microsoft's own team for firms that prefer GUI-less!! Even MS' own consultants push the GUI. Maybe they don't state that, but their actions are GUI based.
This is the point... that in the field, the culture of Windows Admins is too heavily focused on the GUI and Microsoft lip service isn't changing that. In the real world, PS as a real admin tool and not just "installed for when we have no other choice" and GUI-less Windows administration remains a novelty. The culture of the Windows Admin world is to be accepting of the GUI dependencies and to ignore the fact that this is inefficient.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've worked with large Wall St. investment firms that were very Windows-focused shops, with $200K+ Windows Admins across the board and none used PS and when the UNIX teams asked about the use of tools like RSAT the team actually didn't even know that Microsoft had remote management toolsets like that!
Wait, what? There are Windows Admins earning over $200k who don't know what RSAT is? Really?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I've worked with large Wall St. investment firms that were very Windows-focused shops, with $200K+ Windows Admins across the board and none used PS and when the UNIX teams asked about the use of tools like RSAT the team actually didn't even know that Microsoft had remote management toolsets like that!
Wait, what? There are Windows Admins earning over $200k who don't know what RSAT is? Really?
I kid you not. They were deploying so many things haphazardly breaking RSAT compatibility that they have never even researched it. Literally my first day at this massive firm and I asked about that decision making and a room full of Windows Admins, including their manager, looked at my like deer in the headlights and asked what RSAT was.
Seriously.... no clue how this happens yet, it really does.
-
I suppose that would be a benefit of insisting on certs when recruiting. It wouldn't make them good at their jobs, but it would at lease ensure that they have heard of the basics.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I suppose that would be a benefit of insisting on certs when recruiting. It wouldn't make them good at their jobs, but it would at lease ensure that they have heard of the basics.
Very much so. That's something that I've mentioned when speaking to people about cert value to the vendor - they are a strong means of educating and indoctrinating their user base. They don't force people to use the tools, but they ensure that people are aware of the vendor's intended means of working.
There are tons of Windows things I would never have found on my own but know because they were in the certification process. Some are useful, some I've never used. But at least I am aware of them.
Certification helps with standardizing the field.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I've worked with large Wall St. investment firms that were very Windows-focused shops, with $200K+ Windows Admins across the board and none used PS and when the UNIX teams asked about the use of tools like RSAT the team actually didn't even know that Microsoft had remote management toolsets like that!
Wait, what? There are Windows Admins earning over $200k who don't know what RSAT is? Really?
I kid you not. They were deploying so many things haphazardly breaking RSAT compatibility that they have never even researched it. Literally my first day at this massive firm and I asked about that decision making and a room full of Windows Admins, including their manager, looked at my like deer in the headlights and asked what RSAT was.
Seriously.... no clue how this happens yet, it really does.
This makes me think those people were all there before Windows was brought in house, and that they have never hired anyone from the outside to be on the team who could have brought that knowledge with them and share it amongst the group.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I suppose that would be a benefit of insisting on certs when recruiting. It wouldn't make them good at their jobs, but it would at lease ensure that they have heard of the basics.
Very much so. That's something that I've mentioned when speaking to people about cert value to the vendor - they are a strong means of educating and indoctrinating their user base. They don't force people to use the tools, but they ensure that people are aware of the vendor's intended means of working.
There are tons of Windows things I would never have found on my own but know because they were in the certification process. Some are useful, some I've never used. But at least I am aware of them.
Certification helps with standardizing the field.
You're the lucky one with a near eidetic memory. I'm sure I've been exposed to way more than I'll ever remember from my cert testing days.
-
@Dashrender said:
This makes me think those people were all there before Windows was brought in house, and that they have never hired anyone from the outside to be on the team who could have brought that knowledge with them and share it amongst the group.
No, none of them. The place had been Windows since the 90s at least and none of them had over five years. They were all high cost Windows people before joining there.
-
@Dashrender said:
This makes me think those people were all there before Windows was brought in house, and that they have never hired anyone from the outside to be on the team who could have brought that knowledge with them and share it amongst the group.
At least one had been brought in only a week or two before I started and another just one month before.
That highlights how much the culture is focused on the GUI and legacy management... fresh blood actually rarely brings in the kind of cross-cultural skill enhancement that you would expect. You could hire twenty Windows people and might actually not get a single one that has used RSAT.
Think of it this way.... if you went to thirty SMB shops on SW, what are the chances that a single one of them has seen the info that SANs aren't needed like they think, that they shouldn't farm their own jobs out to sales people and that RAID 5 is a bad idea? You might get lucky, but there is every chance that not a single one would have seen that despite it being discussed ad nauseum, being widely published and continuously discussed for nearly a decade.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
This makes me think those people were all there before Windows was brought in house, and that they have never hired anyone from the outside to be on the team who could have brought that knowledge with them and share it amongst the group.
No, none of them. The place had been Windows since the 90s at least and none of them had over five years. They were all high cost Windows people before joining there.
Wow Just wow - other than the fact that I don't think I'd want to work in such a clearly knowledge deficient environment, man, how do I get a job at $200K there? lol
-
@Dashrender said:
Wow Just wow - other than the fact that I don't think I'd want to work in such a clearly knowledge deficient environment, man, how do I get a job at $200K there? lol
Believe it or not, they struggle to hire!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Think of it this way.... if you went to thirty SMB shops on SW, what are the chances that a single one of them has seen the info that SANs aren't needed like they think, that they shouldn't farm their own jobs out to sales people and that RAID 5 is a bad idea? You might get lucky, but there is every chance that not a single one would have seen that despite it being discussed ad nauseum, being widely published and continuously discussed for nearly a decade.
There's a severe difference, or at least there should be, between SMB IT personal and guys getting $200K/yr. Sadly SMB's rarely pay for training, and well sadly the personal don't care about their own professional growth within IT so they don't and update their skills.
But larger companies should be mandating this and providing it. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Wow Just wow - other than the fact that I don't think I'd want to work in such a clearly knowledge deficient environment, man, how do I get a job at $200K there? lol
Believe it or not, they struggle to hire!
How can that be? Do the places have such horrible reputations that no one wants to work there? Are they in Detroit, aka no one wants to live there?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Think of it this way.... if you went to thirty SMB shops on SW, what are the chances that a single one of them has seen the info that SANs aren't needed like they think, that they shouldn't farm their own jobs out to sales people and that RAID 5 is a bad idea? You might get lucky, but there is every chance that not a single one would have seen that despite it being discussed ad nauseum, being widely published and continuously discussed for nearly a decade.
There's a severe difference, or at least there should be, between SMB IT personal and guys getting $200K/yr. Sadly SMB's rarely pay for training, and well sadly the personal don't care about their own professional growth within IT so they don't and update their skills.
But larger companies should be mandating this and providing it.They hope to hire people with the experience already, in many cases. And if you don't know what training you don't have, how do you know what to send people to?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Wow Just wow - other than the fact that I don't think I'd want to work in such a clearly knowledge deficient environment, man, how do I get a job at $200K there? lol
Believe it or not, they struggle to hire!
How can that be? Do the places have such horrible reputations that no one wants to work there? Are they in Detroit, aka no one wants to live there?
Yup, a lot like that.
