3 ms·

> The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. In fact, it asks the same questions as a typical Ubuntu install: keyboard langu

> The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. In fact, it asks the same questions as a typical Ubuntu install: keyboard language, timezone, username + password, partitioning, network. They throw in a couple more questions about enabling NTP and SSH. > And not only is the system pretty simple, the documentation is really good, too. I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow.

vog 11y ago
> I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. Unfortunately, we see this for (some, newby) system administrators, too. I guess this is the typical issue with "getting it work" versus "getting it right".
- moviuro 11y ago
  What about docker .vs. real system administration?...
  - chousuke 11y ago
    You know, if you use Docker for the right reasons, in the right way, it can be a real time saver. I'm not really sold on the way Docker specifically tries to be fire-and-forget easy (it often succeeds in being silly and you have to work around it), but containers are good. There's a lot of very useful software that just expects that it can do whatever it wants on a system, like install its own dependencies from git, run its own version of python etc. You may want to run such software in production and it is an absolute maintenance nightmare if you install all the dependencies via package management. Upgrading starts with rebuilding and repackaging all dependencies. Not fun, and not a good use of time. For such software, containers make it feasible to administer as somewhat manageable units: You create the Dockerfile or whatever to install the software you want, and run the resulting image on a host, and bring configuration in via puppet or something. Then, when you need to upgrade, you rebuild your image and deploy it on the host; rollbacks are trivial, as is scaling, or creating test environments. You can of course achieve the same sort of thing with virtual machines providing you have good orchestration. However, often a deployment can consist of multiple software components that are separate units, but can (or must) share a single host. I think so long as Linux containers don't actually offer real security, that's the niche where they are useful.
ams6110 11y ago
Even older users can get into this habit. I started with Unix before the web existed. Man pages (or books) were usually the only documentation. Then Google, and StackOverflow, and others came along and it was very easy to slip into the habit of just searching for answers. When you use OpenBSD there isn't necessarily a lot to be found online, other than mailing list archives. But remember to look at the man pages and the OpenBSD FAQ[1] they will usually have the answers you need. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ http://www.openbsd.org/faq/
smcl 11y ago
I know what you mean about man pages, but I think it's a little subtler than that. The man pages are generally useful if you already know roughly what you're looking for (i.e. you know that some utility provides the functionality you need) but can be a little troubling if you haven't a clue which combination of program, config file etc to use.
- ethbro 11y ago
  This is a fair point. As far as I know, on linux there are limited / no man pages covering general system architecture. E.g "My wifi is broken, where do I start?"
fao_ 11y ago
> I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. I do not disagree entirely, but I would add that they've probably learned to do this because most linux distributions* are not very well documented -- in comparison to BSD systems, which are known for their amazing handbooks, man pages, etc. *: Excluding (of course) Arch, Gentoo, and (Last I checked) Slackware

vog 11y ago

> I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. Unfortunately, we see this for (some, newby) system administrators, too. I guess this is the typical issue with "getting it work" versus "getting it right".

moviuro 11y ago
What about docker .vs. real system administration?...
- chousuke 11y ago
  You know, if you use Docker for the right reasons, in the right way, it can be a real time saver. I'm not really sold on the way Docker specifically tries to be fire-and-forget easy (it often succeeds in being silly and you have to work around it), but containers are good. There's a lot of very useful software that just expects that it can do whatever it wants on a system, like install its own dependencies from git, run its own version of python etc. You may want to run such software in production and it is an absolute maintenance nightmare if you install all the dependencies via package management. Upgrading starts with rebuilding and repackaging all dependencies. Not fun, and not a good use of time. For such software, containers make it feasible to administer as somewhat manageable units: You create the Dockerfile or whatever to install the software you want, and run the resulting image on a host, and bring configuration in via puppet or something. Then, when you need to upgrade, you rebuild your image and deploy it on the host; rollbacks are trivial, as is scaling, or creating test environments. You can of course achieve the same sort of thing with virtual machines providing you have good orchestration. However, often a deployment can consist of multiple software components that are separate units, but can (or must) share a single host. I think so long as Linux containers don't actually offer real security, that's the niche where they are useful.

ams6110 11y ago

Even older users can get into this habit. I started with Unix before the web existed. Man pages (or books) were usually the only documentation. Then Google, and StackOverflow, and others came along and it was very easy to slip into the habit of just searching for answers. When you use OpenBSD there isn't necessarily a lot to be found online, other than mailing list archives. But remember to look at the man pages and the OpenBSD FAQ[1] they will usually have the answers you need. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ http://www.openbsd.org/faq/

smcl 11y ago

I know what you mean about man pages, but I think it's a little subtler than that. The man pages are generally useful if you already know roughly what you're looking for (i.e. you know that some utility provides the functionality you need) but can be a little troubling if you haven't a clue which combination of program, config file etc to use.

ethbro 11y ago
This is a fair point. As far as I know, on linux there are limited / no man pages covering general system architecture. E.g "My wifi is broken, where do I start?"

fao_ 11y ago

> I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. I do not disagree entirely, but I would add that they've probably learned to do this because most linux distributions* are not very well documented -- in comparison to BSD systems, which are known for their amazing handbooks, man pages, etc. *: Excluding (of course) Arch, Gentoo, and (Last I checked) Slackware