Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fucking Shell Scripts

fuckingshellscripts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 180 posts

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#71

Post by andrewflnr »

This actually looks like as much if not more work to set up than Ansible. As soon as you start talking about required directory hierarchies, you've lost the "just f###### do it" feel. Then I still have to write a special YAML file, and then my scripts.

The Ansible setup for my personal server started as two files: an inventory file consisting of an ip address, and site.yml. My ignorance (and some installation issues) notwithstanding, it has scaled pretty smoothly from there to copying up config files, templated nginx config, and so on. I don't see much room for anything between that and a literal "just f###### shell script".

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#72

Post by samstave »

dogas wrote: post #16

Coauthor here. Well, this is a surprise! This project was mainly borne out of our frustrations with Chef and then Ansible for configuring our servers. A few thoughts: 1) This project is incomplete and is more of a concept than anything. We wrote it literally in an afternoon, and were giggling like schoolgirls the whole time. 2) There is value in what Ansible provides. It does a lot of things for you. FSS did not repl…

I love it - we got into a dialogue at work today with OPs and Eng on what to use for config mgmt (of our app)... and then this hit HN today...

I sent this along as a tongue-in-cheek 100% Solution.

And.... I actually read the site after I sent this along and realized its actuallyfuckingcoolshellscripts.org

So... thanks!

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#73

Post by efuquen »

I originally thought this was a lament about how shell scripts suck, like along the lines of "man, those fucking shell scripts ..."

My surprise when I saw this is the exact opposite of that ...

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#74

Post by colechristensen »

fleitz wrote: post #57
colechristensen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shell scripts are extremely portable and should be the preferred method for a large set of tasks. Properly written, a shell script can run on a 20 year old Solaris machine, any version of Windows (with installed tools like Cygwin) and any modern Unix variant... claiming Node.js is more portable is ridiculous on so many levels. The problem is so many programmers don't take the time (or care to take the time) to learn…

Ahh yes, the much vaunted Hammer Factory Factory. http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.219431....

This fills me with great joy and sadness.

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#75

Post by networked »

dogas wrote: post #16

Coauthor here. Well, this is a surprise! This project was mainly borne out of our frustrations with Chef and then Ansible for configuring our servers. A few thoughts: 1) This project is incomplete and is more of a concept than anything. We wrote it literally in an afternoon, and were giggling like schoolgirls the whole time. 2) There is value in what Ansible provides. It does a lot of things for you. FSS did not repl…

I see the appeal of FSS; I've felt frustrated with the extra effort it takes to describe some operations using Ansible compared to shell scripts. However, your project suggests to me that what we may really need is a tool to translate shell scripts into (reasonably idiomatic) Ansible playbooks, perhaps interactively and with further review from the user. That, or to otherwise automate the creation of playbooks where possible.

Edit: removed speculation about an idempotent *nix shell.

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#76

Post by gerhardlazu »

After 4 years of heavy Cheffing, I completely agree with most opinions expressed here. I'm pretty sure Puppet is just about the same, I have 0 experience with it though, I won't claim otherwise.

I got frustrated enough with the Capistrano, Fabric, Puppi lot that I wrote a pure bash deployment tool with a fitting name htpps://github.com/gerhard/deliver.

Ansible on the other hand is something else though. There is some learning curve, agreed, but it's not as bad as awk or sed. And seriously, if you know your bash, you will know both awk and sed. I consider my shell scripting to be above average, and I've attempted a Docker orchestration pure bash tool https://github.com/cambridge-healthcare/dockerize, but Ansible just makes the same job easier. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but before you dismiss it, give it a real chance. I should know because I have initially dismissed it thinking that it's too complex, yet another Chef circus, yada yada, but trust me - it's worth it ; )

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#78

Post by gerhardlazu »

And one more thing: the point of a system management tool is to have no dependencies. If you need to install or use anything other than the provisioner to setup a vanilla distro, you've been hustled. Bash is guaranteed to work everywhere and that's what most love about it - myself including. But Ansible works on my RaspberryPies, on my FreeBSD storage servers and on my production Debians, Ubuntus and ArchLinuxes with no crutches or aids. I had bash scripts before, was really close to open sourcing them, but then I realised there is a much better way ; )

Re: Fucking Shell Scripts

#80

Post by eli »

benched wrote: post #70

Guiys, the fucking swearing in the name suks alot. Not all the managers like it. That's why we have perfesionalism, cause prfesionalism is good. Guiys, we haf to get along. We cant do it with swearing. Please, think about pleasing everyone and offending none. Otherwise ur milenials, ruining our designated corprate productivity spaces.

Shrug

If you want people to use your software -- and you do or you wouldn't be promoting it -- you should consider how you present it. Bad words don't offend me, but they do suggest immaturity and inexperience... qualities I tend to avoid in systems orchestration.

Post reply on HN