From: mjinks Date: 00:01 on 19 Aug 2003 Subject: how can i hate it? i can't even install it. So, I'm the JumpStart gimp in our shop. For those who haven't had the pleasure of hating JumpStart, it's Sun's software for automatically (HA! Ha ha, ha!) setting up Solaris. When it works (ha!), it saves loads and loads of time and even more aggravation. Having set up jumpstart over the past months-and-months, I wonder how many machines we'll have to let it install before we start to see a positive return on the time. But I did not come here to hate JumpStart, nor Solaris, nor any specific chunk of nasty nasty software; rather, I have come to hate an entire class of software: interactive installers which don't offer an automated option of the sort that would let them become part of our happy new JumpStart regime. Case in point: Sun's own "Forte" compiler package, formerly known as Sun Workshop or something else, who knows. Because it simply must have a host-specific license key which is generated from an installation key and some host-specific info, you can't just make a tarball and truck the same installation out to all your machines at install time. Oh, no. You have to drop the distribution media into the box, answer all the happy questions, drop in your installation key, and let it install all the files itself, or it just won't work. Even better: Veritas' NetBackup. A hateful piece of software if ever there was one, NBU had to have an installer of similar hatefulness. Unlike Forte-or-whatever-they-think-sounds-cute-this-week, NBU doesn't require a license key. There's no reason why it couldn't be distributed as netbackup.<platform+version>.<version>.tar.gz, or a SysV-style package, or whateverthehell. But because Veritas is staffed entirely by slope-browed sadists, they made up for this oversight in inconvenience by writing an installation script. The script must be run interactively. Because Bog knows you're not ever going to want to install NBU on every last machine your operation runs, because after all who would ever want to back up all their systems, so what's the harm in requiring hands-on interaction for each and every blasted copy of NBU that your shop sets up? And in those few cases where NBU installation might be a good idea to include in the initial setup of all a site's machines, well, people will just write expect scripts or something, right? I hate expect, so now I'm picking through Veritas' chain of scripts (just one install script? oh how droll! we need a chain of them which call each other!) looking for the point at which they stop collecting silly environmental information (which will always be exactly the same on every bogdamn box we run) and actually frickin' /do/ something. (I already know that, rather than running tar, or cpio, or pkgadd, or any of the other perfectly-reasonable approaches to installing software archives, they call "cp" many, many times on many, many files.) Then I'm going to slice off all the fat and include just that part of their script in our JumpStart setup. It won't work of course. There will end up being some reason why every box we set up must first be JumpStart'ed, then some human will have to sit down, log in, cd to the NBU source directory, run ./install, hit three keys, and go on to the next thing. Meaning that some percentage of our machines will fall victim to human error and won't get backup software at first. I wonder how long before such a machine has a catastrophic data loss before the oversight is corrected. Then there's ipf. I hate ipf, and now that I'm trying to include it in all our automatically-installed machines, I have new reason to hate it even more. Now, if you hate ipf as well, and particularly if you've hated ipf on Solaris, you might wonder why I mention it here. After all, Mr. Reed makes ample provision for distributing ipf as a Solaris package, so what's the problem? "pkgadd -d <file> -a <admin_file> ipf ipfx" and you're done, right? Well you are if you run that command from an interactive shell, sure; zips right on through, never bothers the user to answer any dumb prompt. But run it as part of a script (as in, say, JumpStart) and it dies, with some moron error like "no TTY set" or some shit like that. Other SysV packages don't do that, but who cares? Why on earth would you want to automate ipf installation anyhow? Not like you'll actually want all your computers to be able to filter unwanted network traffic, after all. Maybe it's my fault. Maybe I'm just a luddite who doesn't see the advantage in having more and more Unix software act more and more like Windows software, with individual quirks requiring knowledgeable humans spending their time clicking "OK" over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. I'm learning though. I typed "and over" manually each time, rather than having vi repeat for me, because I'm a get-along-with-others kind of guy, and if that's the trend, then dammit I'm gonna fit in. *fume*
From: Arthur Bergman Date: 10:44 on 19 Aug 2003 Subject: Re: how can i hate it? i can't even install it. On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 12:01 am, mjinks@xxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > > Maybe it's my fault. Maybe I'm just a luddite who doesn't see the > advantage in having more and more Unix software act more and more like > Windows software, with individual quirks requiring knowledgeable humans > spending their time clicking "OK" over, and over, and over, and over, > and over, and over, and over again. I'm learning though. I typed "and > over" manually each time, rather than having vi repeat for me, because > I'm a get-along-with-others kind of guy, and if that's the trend, then > dammit I'm gonna fit in. > > mmmmmmmmm, I could just feel the intense hate all the way over the pond to London! Why are installers and installing software such a pain, why does all package systems suck, why do you get interactive shell scripts everywhere, I am ready to buy your explanation that people writing installation software are sadists. Maybe we should just be lucky that we don't need to fire up X and press a randomly appearing button after every stage in the install process. And now I go back to writing a new build system for us that will just produce a self contained tar.gz and the software should auto configure itself on startup! That means that I will most likely hate m4 and autoconf a bit more soonish.
From: Greg McCarroll Date: 14:41 on 19 Aug 2003 Subject: Re: how can i hate it? i can't even install it. * Arthur Bergman (sky@xxxxxxx.xxx) wrote: > > I am ready to buy your explanation that people writing > installation software are sadists. > But remembe,r when they are writing installation systems their sadism is under check from the sales and marketting people around them, who want you to install the software just so they can sell you upgrades in the future. Its when they write uninstallers that they really get free reign and even encouragement from their spiteful sales colleagues, who realise that everytime a large IT department uninstalls their software, they lose a chance to sell upgrades and hence will have to put up with a non-metallic paint job for their upcoming pretend sports car. Also, o you think these buggers have some sort of professional body? Where they sit and compare mechanisms for making the end users lifes hell, classics such as ... put the one bit of user input halfway threw the long install meaning that after you come back from coffee you have to press return and then sit and wait for the damn thing to finish - why couldn't they ask at the start, the answer of course is they could but they prefer you to suffer. or those license key boxes where i'm sure they randomly remap the meanings of tab, right arrow and return on each display of the box so you can never seem to type the subsections of one or two chars in correctly. bastards, but if hell does exist, i'm sure it has a special punishment for them where they get to install their own software in the morning and uninstall it at night - rolling a huge rock or having their livers pecked out is too good for them. Greg
From: Scott Francis
Date: 20:50 on 20 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: how can i hate it? i can't even install it.
--kJCZHFqBEEYq/eA6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:44:30AM +0100, sky@xxxxxxx.xxx said:
[snip]
> mmmmmmmmm, I could just feel the intense hate all the way over the pond=
=20
> to London! Why are installers and installing software such a pain, why=20
> does all package systems suck, why do you get interactive shell scripts=
=20
> everywhere, I am ready to buy your explanation that people writing=20
> installation software are sadists. Maybe we should just be lucky that=20
> we don't need to fire up X and press a randomly appearing button after=20
> every stage in the install process.
Add to this list Oracle's ocfstool (required to manage their ocfs shared
filesystem stuff for Oracle 9i cluster). It _requires_ an X11 server (or
work-alike) to run. This is software required for the maintenance and
installation of database clusters. It requires a GUI. a _UNIX_ GUI.
=2E..
(oh, and this is for the Linux version too, since I know Solaris ships with
CDE and X and all the many shiny GUI things by default.)
Anybody who creates server software tools that _require_ a GUI (no
command-line option available for ocfstool, even though you MUST RUN IT to =
do
things like edit /etc/fstab properly - I suppose 'vi /etc/fstab' just won't
work for them ...) should be taken out back and slapped until they can't see
straight, then forced to click a mouse with each hand until their fingers
fall off.
--=20
Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
--kJCZHFqBEEYq/eA6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE/Q9EHWaB7jFU39ScRAh0RAJ9dZTjK4J9YKc7gXWFiR3ftJIzGZQCggvEV
YbecdRgXREmyzjnI0+BF3Lc=
=lCsV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kJCZHFqBEEYq/eA6--
Generated at 10:25 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi