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

Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 340 posts

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#181

Post by robaato »

yobert wrote: post #74
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed from pair programming that the person navigating with a mouse is far less able to read and interpret their surroundings or pick up typos while typing, than an observer that simply has to watch what the other person is doing. Like when clicking on a file in a directory you just entered and looking for the file, the observer can literally locate and point to the file for the mouse user 5-10x faster than th…

I think this is because writing software is so much more than operating switches and controls. I really hate pair programming for this reason, but I love industrial-style controls and protocols involving multiple people.

Back in the '80s I worked on a financial system (SWIFT interface) for an Italian bank. It went operational and we observed 2 operators effectively doing "pair operating". We just thought it was weird Italian style socialising - one had the keyboard and the other was chattering away with a commentary. But they were surprisingly effective!

I accidentally learned when teaching a course at a site with too many people for the available machines, that pair exercises was very effective - I got lots more questions and overall learning went way up. If the pair discussed it and couldn't find an answer they would have the confidence to ask. On their own, neither would probably bother and just wait for me to go through things.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#182

Post by robaato »

Symbiote wrote: post #177
GauntletWizard wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wake up in the mornings with "Shit Shower Shave" and leave the house with "Wallet Watch Testicles Spectacles". Simple mnemonics work, doubly so if you actually say them out loud and check them each off.

It is normally "spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch", since that would traditionally make the Catholic sign of the cross. But maybe you're a Satanist, in which case the reverse order probably makes sense.

"Nuns on the run" (Robbie Coltrane and Eric Idle)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqXZ9YoRD50

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#183

Post by robaato »

harikb wrote: post #62

I have a habit of creating cli tools, which potentially do dangerous things, to default to dry-run mode. For example, instead of the typical `--dry-run` or `-n` option, my scripts instead had a cheesy `--do-it` to be non-dry-run. It is annoying as hell to my colleagues, but saved the day many times.

Bash tip I picked up from observation - always start a potential command with #

# rm -rf some_dir

Then if you accidentally press return before completing it hasn't happened.

When you have reviewed and are sure it is correct, you recall and delete the hash to execute - simples!

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#184

Post by hotsauceror »

dmuth wrote: post #90
harikb wrote: post #62

I have a habit of creating cli tools, which potentially do dangerous things, to default to dry-run mode. For example, instead of the typical `--dry-run` or `-n` option, my scripts instead had a cheesy `--do-it` to be non-dry-run. It is annoying as hell to my colleagues, but saved the day many times.

I do something similar with my scripts, but have `--go` action, even on a script that requires no other options, just so that if it's run without any options, the person running it gets a message saying what the script WOULD do, if `--go` were passed in.

I do the same thing. All of my scripts have a -defang parameter which walks through the entire process, including placeholder log messages, but not actually performing the operation. My run books always say to run your exact command with this switch first, to proofread it. For some dangerous scripts, defang is enabled and has to be manually turned off. Defang is also nice because it will tell you e.g. here’s the size of the backup you’ll be restoring, or the filepath you’ve composed based on your parameters, or confirming that you’ll be replacing an existing thing instead of creating a new one. It has saved me many, many times.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#186

Post by robaato »

andrewflnr wrote: post #68
jasonpeacock wrote: post #49

Raskin talks about the futility of this in his book The Humane Interface. Basically, what happens is the brain switches operating context from "I want to do something" to "resolve this interruption (confirmation box)" and you don't relate the one to the other - you're so focused on getting rid of the interruption that the original task is forgotten until after the interruption is gone. Then you switch back to the ori…

That's exactly why it's not a "confirmation box", but requires you to slow down and think for half a second. She even talked about mitigating copy-paste, which is the next obvious way people could habituate. Also, while undo is great, it's not always technically feasible. The tools in question are basically for modifying the layer that implements undo for your end users, and are often themselves fundamentally irrever…

Or you have commands which randomly reverse the meaning of the confirmation prompt:

Continue: yes or no?

Don't continue: yes or no?

As long as operators know to expect this, they also know to wait and actually read the prompt before answering (as in turn of auto reaction)...

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#187

Post by zamadatix »

Darkphibre wrote: post #153

Reminds me of when the Fortune 50 company (150k employees) I worked for rolled out new firewall restrictions that blocked the DNS port. To all machines. Employee and servers alike. Yes. Including the DNS servers. Took them a day or two to work out how to roll that one back.

The first use of a new security product my manager insisted we roll out (as a duplicate to an existing tool from another group) was to quarantine a change in a system file that seemed to be spreading through all of the PCs.

Except the change was to quarantine explorer.exe which was being changed with a patch that just got pushed out. The net result was about 6 hours of the desktop group wondering "why the hell are all of the PCs not logging in right after this patch" followed by about a month of rolling tickets from seldom used computers that had just been powered off.

His excuse was it only showed a file hash in the main screen and you had to view details to see the name plus he had a 3 day change open to roll out the system. Never understood how he got away with that one but such things did catch up to him about 2 years later.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#188

Post by MaxBarraclough »

encom wrote: post #166
js2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned a technique from a gray beard[0] when I worked as a student sys admin for the CS dept over two decades ago. Whenever typing a destructive command, he'd take his hands off the keyboard and drop them to his side, re-read the command, then put his hands back to press enter. I do this whenever I'm on a production server (which is rare anyway). I use different colored prompts for local and remote shells. [0] Tec…

Re: Beards, color of: Mine started turning grey in my mid 20s. Could be related to me doing the electricians equivalent of deleting production DBs. I've drilled through the comms cable to payment terminals during opening hours. I've run over a copper gas line with a scissor lift. And yes, I've cut live 230V cables with hand tools. That sinking feeling in your stomach you get immediately after doing something bad - it…

This reminds of a quote from, I think, Discworld.

> You're a survivor.

> But I've nearly died, dozens of times.

> Exactly.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#190

Post by MaxBarraclough »

brundolf wrote: post #129
js2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned a technique from a gray beard[0] when I worked as a student sys admin for the CS dept over two decades ago. Whenever typing a destructive command, he'd take his hands off the keyboard and drop them to his side, re-read the command, then put his hands back to press enter. I do this whenever I'm on a production server (which is rare anyway). I use different colored prompts for local and remote shells. [0] Tec…

Different-colored prompts for different machines is a great thing to do (I've been doing it for years), and very easy to implement

Solid tip. For GUI-enabled servers, use distinctively coloured wallpapers. I recommend bright red for production machines. The image itself can be just about anything, provided the colour is clear.

Doesn't hurt to use an image that's related to the server's purpose, and to put the name of the server right there in the wallpaper somewhere.

Post reply on HN