5 ms·

In the anecdote about Bill and the DISASTER script, I'm not so sure that deleting the script would be such a big deal. If this script hasn't been touched since

by lantry 3y ago

In the anecdote about Bill and the DISASTER script, I'm not so sure that deleting the script would be such a big deal. If this script hasn't been touched since the 1980s and nobody knows what it does, presumably nobody has tested it recently. It seems like if there really was a disaster, first of all nobody would know that script existed, and second of all if they tried to run the script, it would fail because of all the changes to the system since the script was initially developed. Isn't there some saying like "if you don't test your backups, you don't have backups" or something like that?

LeoPanthera 3y ago
I bet it still would have been a useful template for a human to read to get a general idea of what things to do and in what order.
- wkdneidbwf 3y ago
  good luck reading 10k lines of shell written decades ago. it would likely be an incredible waste of time.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > good luck reading 10k lines of shell written decades ago. it would likely be an incredible waste of time. If the entire telephone system was down and needed cold started, and the script had information someone needed to do that, someone would take the time to read it. Maybe not run it, but definitely read it to extract clues. I mean, it's not like it's binary. It's totally possible.
    - Gabrys1 3y ago
      Based on ChatGPT, assuming 10k lines translates to around 30k words, it should take about 3hrs to read it. Multiply that by your favorite factor for read and understand. Split that to a few people, skim parts that are not applicable etc. All in one this seems easily readable in sensible time.
      - thelastparadise 3y ago
        I know, right? Can you even imagine the alternative? "Hey lets throw this maybe incredibly helpful shell script in the trash. Because it's too long."
wkdneidbwf 3y ago
right? that whole bit reads like some lame parable. like who in there right mind is going to run a 10k line shell script named DISASTER they’ve never read and cannot read because it’s 10k lines of shell? there is apparently no documentation (and positively no tests)? one guy close to retirement remembers what it’s for and says “don’t delete this critical but of code!” it’s just utter bullshit.
- chubot 3y ago
  If tens of millions of dollars are on the line, you will be able to find someone who can run the script or derive enough knowledge from it In a disaster scenario, something is better than nothing
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    Bill is clearly still picking up the phone. He'd likely be amenable to picking up a paycheck as well.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Not if he's dead. Some of the stuff is old enough that it's a reasonable question.
  - wkdneidbwf 3y ago
    it’s more that i don’t believe it’s a real scenario.
    - adityaathalye 3y ago
      Isn't that the entire point? People don't believe (or choose to not believe) a certain disaster scenario is valid, until it happens. We all have seen first-hand the many examples of colossal failures of disaster-response planning in our recent planet-wide emergency. As have we seen the creative, dogged, herculean efforts to cope with it.
- adityaathalye 3y ago
perrygeo 3y ago
"Nobody cares if you have backups. Everyone cares that you can restore." Classic problem of deferred costs. Backups cost money and it's tempting to avoid investment in them (ie fail to test them) but that can bite you when its least convenient.
mastax 3y ago
I have a hard time believing the 10k line shell script didn't have a comment at the top saying what it did.
- alexfoo 3y ago
  #!/bin/sh
weinzierl 3y ago
It's likely that enough infrastructure had changed that the script would not run successfully anyway. On the other hand it would have been excellent documentation about the system at a certain point in time. I say excellent, not because I assume it would have been well written, but because when it comes to these things I prefer code (any form of code, indeed) that I can be reasonably sure worked at some time over natural language documentation any time. I completely agree with Dr. House when he says he never asks the patient, because they lie all the time. Same with human written documentation.

by lantry 3y ago

LeoPanthera 3y ago

I bet it still would have been a useful template for a human to read to get a general idea of what things to do and in what order.

wkdneidbwf 3y ago
good luck reading 10k lines of shell written decades ago. it would likely be an incredible waste of time.
- tivert 3y ago
  > good luck reading 10k lines of shell written decades ago. it would likely be an incredible waste of time. If the entire telephone system was down and needed cold started, and the script had information someone needed to do that, someone would take the time to read it. Maybe not run it, but definitely read it to extract clues. I mean, it's not like it's binary. It's totally possible.
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    Based on ChatGPT, assuming 10k lines translates to around 30k words, it should take about 3hrs to read it. Multiply that by your favorite factor for read and understand. Split that to a few people, skim parts that are not applicable etc. All in one this seems easily readable in sensible time.
    - thelastparadise 3y ago
      I know, right? Can you even imagine the alternative? "Hey lets throw this maybe incredibly helpful shell script in the trash. Because it's too long."

wkdneidbwf 3y ago

right? that whole bit reads like some lame parable. like who in there right mind is going to run a 10k line shell script named DISASTER they’ve never read and cannot read because it’s 10k lines of shell? there is apparently no documentation (and positively no tests)? one guy close to retirement remembers what it’s for and says “don’t delete this critical but of code!” it’s just utter bullshit.

chubot 3y ago
If tens of millions of dollars are on the line, you will be able to find someone who can run the script or derive enough knowledge from it In a disaster scenario, something is better than nothing
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  Bill is clearly still picking up the phone. He'd likely be amenable to picking up a paycheck as well.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Not if he's dead. Some of the stuff is old enough that it's a reasonable question.
- wkdneidbwf 3y ago
  it’s more that i don’t believe it’s a real scenario.
  - adityaathalye 3y ago
    Isn't that the entire point? People don't believe (or choose to not believe) a certain disaster scenario is valid, until it happens. We all have seen first-hand the many examples of colossal failures of disaster-response planning in our recent planet-wide emergency. As have we seen the creative, dogged, herculean efforts to cope with it.
adityaathalye 3y ago

perrygeo 3y ago

"Nobody cares if you have backups. Everyone cares that you can restore." Classic problem of deferred costs. Backups cost money and it's tempting to avoid investment in them (ie fail to test them) but that can bite you when its least convenient.

mastax 3y ago

I have a hard time believing the 10k line shell script didn't have a comment at the top saying what it did.

alexfoo 3y ago
#!/bin/sh

weinzierl 3y ago

It's likely that enough infrastructure had changed that the script would not run successfully anyway. On the other hand it would have been excellent documentation about the system at a certain point in time. I say excellent, not because I assume it would have been well written, but because when it comes to these things I prefer code (any form of code, indeed) that I can be reasonably sure worked at some time over natural language documentation any time. I completely agree with Dr. House when he says he never asks the patient, because they lie all the time. Same with human written documentation.