5 ms·

If you want adoption CLI only is a not a great choice. 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. A CLI only also means you need great docum

If you want adoption CLI only is a not a great choice. 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. A CLI only also means you need great documentation, still people won't read it and constantly ask for a GUI for simple things. Finally for those pointy hair bosses a CLI only service is hard to sign a check for, since they can't really "see it" even if you send a great invoice.

yodon 6y ago
As a general followup observation, if you're building a system, that's probably a sign you're not your primary customer. The fact that you want a CLI-only SaaS is unlikely to be a good measure of what your potential customers want.
asim 6y ago
Hey (Micro Author and CEO here). I hear you. GUI is a thing that's hard to break away from with the point and click crowd. This is where "IT" people and old school sysadmins becoming devops people likely thrive with the AWS dashboard, but considering most devs are writing code and use Git we think the CLI first approach is really key. To this point when we do anything on the web it will start purely as a CLI at m3o.com/cli and replicate the existing terminal experience, but maybe with some messaging like component so you can have nice emojis, rendering screenshots for graphs, etc. When it comes to cheque signing (6-9 figure deals) from the people with the money, I'm sure at that point we'll have to do something to win them over but we're a long ways from it right now.
- paultopia 6y ago
  This looks really cool! Personally, I'd use it---web interfaces are getting increasingly annoying these days. But do you have plans to release libraries for your API in major languages? Stringing together a bunch of shell commands in a bash script is also a little bit annoying... or at least much less friendly than doing the same thing with, say, a Python lib...
  - asim 6y ago
    Thanks! Yes, so the CLI is the main consumption experience but Micro is geared towards services development, meaning we provide a Framework, CLI and Server that all work together. The CLI is mostly just proxying commands via a gRPC server and the entire thing is written in Go so everything we do in the CLI you can use the Framework to do in code. We also generate multi-language clients. Check out the 3.0 release announcement for more info https://micro.mu/blog/2020/11/05/micro-v3-aka-m3o.html https://micro.mu/blog/2020/11/05/micro-v3-aka-m3o.html
- ball_of_lint 6y ago
  Git isn't a great proxy for cli usage. Many developers use git exclusively through a GUI or their text editor.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I use Git, hidden away in the comfort of my IDEs and desktop shell extensions. When I started in computing, CLI was the only option, and I don't miss those days. Good luck with your endevours.
officialchicken 6y ago
> 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. That's terrible - especially the part about the boss who cares more about toys than productivity and delivery. I hope you can find a way to demonstrate your skills to a talented team who in turn can offer sane working conditions.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > the boss who cares more about toys than productivity and delivery. It is terrible, but very common in my experience. It is the success recipe for Apple to a large degree. Software houses are something different, but if you change to another industry as inhouse dev, the priorities change drastically. It has advantages and disadvantages, but in industry jobs outside of software people just cannot really evaluate the quality of your work. It just needs to look shiny to a degree.
- actionowl 6y ago
  That is terrible. As a "boss" of an SRE team, we only use the GUI for groking, testing (in a sandbox account), and for a handful of _documented_ things that have to be done in the GUI (usually account wide settings). Everything else, in every "real" environment is in source control, we use Terraform.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- RhodesianHunter 6y ago
  Implying that there's something wrong with folks that prefer a GUI to a CLI, and that these people are somehow less talented...
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    Artists that paint by numbers are less talented. Oh wow, such a daring thing to say. Of course folks who get scared of a terminal are less "talented" at hardcore IT. That's like a painter being afraid of palets and brushes.
codegeek 6y ago
I love cli, absolutely love using it whenever I can. But I totally agree with you. A lot of my own team (including great developers or technically competent people) prefers GUI and I was always surprised at that but I have given up fighting that battle trying to get everyone to stick to CLI as much as possible :). There must be a reason why people prefer GUI even though cli freaks like me don't get it.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  This isn't the "fault" of CLI itself so much as bad documentation, but for Azure at least it's sometimes difficult if not impossible to find the insane CLI command which corresponds to a fairly basic operation in the GUI. So even though I'm very much a CLI person I frequently find myself in the Azure GUI, just because there's no other way to get stuff done.
- znpy 6y ago
  GUIs definitely have a place. For example, while I am fairly proficient with the git cli and everything, I would never renounce to the comfort of gitk. It's just simpler, faster and more intuitive.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    I think guis are more useful for things you don't do everyday. I'm a cli junkie, but if I'm only going to do something every 6 months, it's not worth the mental effort to remember. I could be using that mental energy for learning obscure git subcommands and trying to shoehorn them into random situations I find myself in.
- elbear 6y ago
  Here's one reason to prefer a GUI: input validation as you type.
Jtsummers 6y ago
> 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. That's weird to me, but I'm in the embedded space. GUIs aren't scriptable (or aren't easily scriptable) which, for me and the teams I've been in, has basically been a no-go. If we can't script it, we can't automate it (easily), so we don't want to use it. A GUI + (good) CLI is a reasonable compromise. GUI helps us do some things, explore the tools/space, and then the CLI for all our automation. > Finally for those pointy hair bosses a CLI only service is hard to sign a check for, since they can't really "see it" even if you send a great invoice. Again, weird to me. But also still the embedded space. We buy tools with no GUI (or an awful one, but a decent CLI) all the time.
- mainstreem 6y ago
  This is my experience in the cloud space as well. Sure, AWS has a GUI, but the API & CLI are what we care about.
- ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
  > GUIs aren't scriptable > If we can't script it, we can't automate it That's the point! In my team in Amazon, a candidate unfamiliar (or hostile to) CLI would be a strong no hire.
rsync 6y ago
"If you want adoption CLI only is a not a great choice." As a CLI only cloud storage provider, I can tell you that the upside to this is dramatically reduced technical support requests. Further, attack surface is also reduced. I sleep very soundly at night knowing that nothing but TCP22 can come into our cloud platform. "90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only" Please don't tell them about rsync.net. They'd hate it.

yodon 6y ago

As a general followup observation, if you're building a system, that's probably a sign you're not your primary customer. The fact that you want a CLI-only SaaS is unlikely to be a good measure of what your potential customers want.

asim 6y ago

Hey (Micro Author and CEO here). I hear you. GUI is a thing that's hard to break away from with the point and click crowd. This is where "IT" people and old school sysadmins becoming devops people likely thrive with the AWS dashboard, but considering most devs are writing code and use Git we think the CLI first approach is really key. To this point when we do anything on the web it will start purely as a CLI at m3o.com/cli and replicate the existing terminal experience, but maybe with some messaging like component so you can have nice emojis, rendering screenshots for graphs, etc. When it comes to cheque signing (6-9 figure deals) from the people with the money, I'm sure at that point we'll have to do something to win them over but we're a long ways from it right now.

paultopia 6y ago
This looks really cool! Personally, I'd use it---web interfaces are getting increasingly annoying these days. But do you have plans to release libraries for your API in major languages? Stringing together a bunch of shell commands in a bash script is also a little bit annoying... or at least much less friendly than doing the same thing with, say, a Python lib...
- asim 6y ago
  Thanks! Yes, so the CLI is the main consumption experience but Micro is geared towards services development, meaning we provide a Framework, CLI and Server that all work together. The CLI is mostly just proxying commands via a gRPC server and the entire thing is written in Go so everything we do in the CLI you can use the Framework to do in code. We also generate multi-language clients. Check out the 3.0 release announcement for more info https://micro.mu/blog/2020/11/05/micro-v3-aka-m3o.html https://micro.mu/blog/2020/11/05/micro-v3-aka-m3o.html
ball_of_lint 6y ago
Git isn't a great proxy for cli usage. Many developers use git exclusively through a GUI or their text editor.
pjmlp 6y ago
I use Git, hidden away in the comfort of my IDEs and desktop shell extensions. When I started in computing, CLI was the only option, and I don't miss those days. Good luck with your endevours.

officialchicken 6y ago

> 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. That's terrible - especially the part about the boss who cares more about toys than productivity and delivery. I hope you can find a way to demonstrate your skills to a talented team who in turn can offer sane working conditions.

raxxorrax 6y ago
> the boss who cares more about toys than productivity and delivery. It is terrible, but very common in my experience. It is the success recipe for Apple to a large degree. Software houses are something different, but if you change to another industry as inhouse dev, the priorities change drastically. It has advantages and disadvantages, but in industry jobs outside of software people just cannot really evaluate the quality of your work. It just needs to look shiny to a degree.
actionowl 6y ago
That is terrible. As a "boss" of an SRE team, we only use the GUI for groking, testing (in a sandbox account), and for a handful of _documented_ things that have to be done in the GUI (usually account wide settings). Everything else, in every "real" environment is in source control, we use Terraform.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
RhodesianHunter 6y ago
Implying that there's something wrong with folks that prefer a GUI to a CLI, and that these people are somehow less talented...
- mrmonkeyman 6y ago
  Artists that paint by numbers are less talented. Oh wow, such a daring thing to say. Of course folks who get scared of a terminal are less "talented" at hardcore IT. That's like a painter being afraid of palets and brushes.

codegeek 6y ago

I love cli, absolutely love using it whenever I can. But I totally agree with you. A lot of my own team (including great developers or technically competent people) prefers GUI and I was always surprised at that but I have given up fighting that battle trying to get everyone to stick to CLI as much as possible :). There must be a reason why people prefer GUI even though cli freaks like me don't get it.

Analemma_ 6y ago
This isn't the "fault" of CLI itself so much as bad documentation, but for Azure at least it's sometimes difficult if not impossible to find the insane CLI command which corresponds to a fairly basic operation in the GUI. So even though I'm very much a CLI person I frequently find myself in the Azure GUI, just because there's no other way to get stuff done.
znpy 6y ago
GUIs definitely have a place. For example, while I am fairly proficient with the git cli and everything, I would never renounce to the comfort of gitk. It's just simpler, faster and more intuitive.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I think guis are more useful for things you don't do everyday. I'm a cli junkie, but if I'm only going to do something every 6 months, it's not worth the mental effort to remember. I could be using that mental energy for learning obscure git subcommands and trying to shoehorn them into random situations I find myself in.
elbear 6y ago
Here's one reason to prefer a GUI: input validation as you type.

Jtsummers 6y ago

> 90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only. That's weird to me, but I'm in the embedded space. GUIs aren't scriptable (or aren't easily scriptable) which, for me and the teams I've been in, has basically been a no-go. If we can't script it, we can't automate it (easily), so we don't want to use it. A GUI + (good) CLI is a reasonable compromise. GUI helps us do some things, explore the tools/space, and then the CLI for all our automation. > Finally for those pointy hair bosses a CLI only service is hard to sign a check for, since they can't really "see it" even if you send a great invoice. Again, weird to me. But also still the embedded space. We buy tools with no GUI (or an awful one, but a decent CLI) all the time.

mainstreem 6y ago
This is my experience in the cloud space as well. Sure, AWS has a GUI, but the API & CLI are what we care about.
ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
> GUIs aren't scriptable > If we can't script it, we can't automate it That's the point! In my team in Amazon, a candidate unfamiliar (or hostile to) CLI would be a strong no hire.

rsync 6y ago

"If you want adoption CLI only is a not a great choice." As a CLI only cloud storage provider, I can tell you that the upside to this is dramatically reduced technical support requests. Further, attack surface is also reduced. I sleep very soundly at night knowing that nothing but TCP22 can come into our cloud platform. "90% of the developers and IT staff I work with are GUI only" Please don't tell them about rsync.net. They'd hate it.