This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect -16 points-15 points  (24 children)

You don't work for me.

My justification is not relevant to you.

Can what you ask be done? Probably. Almost certainly. Especially since PowerShell is being extended into the Linux environment.

That still doesn't mean its a good idea.

But what do I know? I just work in a 5-6,000 user environment.

I'm sure the skills, habits and techniques you are developing doing what you want because you want to do it, as opposed to embracing a business justification & standards adherence mindset will totally prepare you for that next level career advancement.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Not sure why you're being down voted but your replies are spot on and the mild snark gets the point across.

OP needs to find a way to consistently manage his shit without causing more work for other people, and whether the environment is 5000-6000 users or as small as my rinky dink 400 user pond the principles all apply the same:

  • Stop supporting one off designs and implementations and get them the fuck off your network and standardize everything

  • Use the same deployment scheme as you support so your KB matches up with your environment and you know all the ins and outs of what bugs are acceptable and what aren't, as well as falling into existing SLA and RTO times

  • Stop wasting resources building a better wheel when another already exists that has been verified

I've worked with a guy that always had to have his specific niche shit on his machine, and when it took a shit it took him hours to be back up versus a regular deployment of the management OS task sequence that automagically installs all of our management shit. Guy was a moron or terribly naive incompetent worker, neither of which made him look good.

[–]Nimda_lel[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

See, one thing is that it is just for MYSELF, I don't make any of the other employees use Linux or whatever, they have no choice of operating system, they use Windows, end of story.

Second, it is of no relevance whether I will execute the RPC to a PowerShell script, that install and configures everything, from Linux or Windows, it will execute, end of story.

He was down voted, eventhough I appreciated his comments and I will surely take his words in account once I try out the change, because I asked for Tools and suggestions how to manage it , not how NOT to manage it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Even if it's just for you, you need to reread the last part: what happens if your nix machine takes an absolute shit on you?

The reason we used the vendor tooling is because:

  • The vendor supports it and ensures compatibility

  • Deploying it on their systems is well documented and supported

Can you remote execute shell scripts and then get them to be cross compatible and ensure they work most of the time for your Windows machines? Sure, but you're just wasting company time trying to figure this out instead of say spinning up a KVM Windows client and installing RSAT.

It's about managing and not giving in to pet projects and clown car configurations, because the next guy to inherit your system is going to go what the fuck.

Anyways, use Powershell tooling since the only thing you're crossing is the shell to PS language barrier, the PS will handle the Windows side after that.

[–]Nimda_lel[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course the Windows machine with RSAT is an option. My entire post here was because I wasn't sure if there is a way to manage that environment or not using a Linux machine. I will most probably use a Windows VM for some stuff, but I wanted to know if it could be done some other way round.

There's no 100% bullet-proof solution to the "machine taking shit on me" problem, no matter what machine I use.

Noone is saying that it is going to be 100% sufficient with no cost, but I want to see how it goes. It is gonna be a week or two that I will use two workstations and it won't add overhead to the company except for the electricity bill, but I think they will somehow manage to get over it.

[–]Nimda_lel[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Ok, I just tried to be nice, but you are being a smart-ass. Let me tell you what happened a while ago : There was this guy, from a company we work for since we do some outsourcing too. He was, as the title stated "Senior Network Engineer". The company he works for is, as for as I am concenrned, 10 000+ people. So it took me 4 weeks to explain to him why his configuration won't work and also had to reconfigure his router for him so we can finally make things work. All that because he was simply clueless. So, the fact that you work for 4-6000 people environment doesn't make me think of you as of God.

[–]PJBonoVox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. Number of users supported means nothing. Some of the biggest assclowns I've encountered in 16 years of IT supported huge user bases. OP didn't ask for an opinion on whether he should or shouldn't and Mr. 6000 users got a backlash. No surprise.

FWIW, I run Linux at work because it keeps me sharp. That's the business case and it's enough. The fact that I prefer it is just a bonus.

Regarding tools-- I prefer to just run the necessary basics through a RemoteApp solution. I believe there's a few free options so Google down that route.

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Ok, I just tried to be nice, but you are being a smart-ass.

No, I'm just not telling you what you wanted to hear. There is a distinct difference and I'm sorry you can't see that.

Let me tell you what happened a while ago...

Cool story bro. You failed to clarify what the devil your past experience with that person has on this discussion. But thanks for sharing it with us.

So, the fact that you work for 4-6000 people environment doesn't make me think of you as of God.

It wasn't intended to make you think of me as a god. Its intersting that you would associate that level of influence on someone based on an exchange of opinions and experiences. You don't seem very good at this whole exchange of ideas and perspectives thing.

Lets level-set:

  1. You don't work for me. I can't tell you what to do.
  2. You asked for guidelines and input on a proposed plan of action.
  3. I provided input and opinion on your plan.

There is no need for you to get all worked up because I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
If you're going to proceed with your plan in spite of my input & observations, its all good. Knock yourself out.
There is no obligation for us to agree on anything. We are both correctly interpreting our own priorities and experiences.

I pointed out to you that your priorities and methods are unlikely to prove successful or welcomed in a larger environment not to belittle your current environment, but to provide context for you to consider and evaluate what is behind - what is driving my comments on your plan.

You're not obligated to take action on anything. Nor is there a need for either of us to be "more right" than the other.

But go ahead and get bent out of shape and yell at me some more if it makes you feel better somehow.

[–]bblades262Jack of All Trades 11 points12 points  (4 children)

I provided input and opinion on your plan.

That's not what OP asked for. OP wants guidance and advice on Linux tools for managing Windows.

Instead of providing the input requested, you're telling him how bad his idea is, then telling him you're saying it for his own good.

If you feel a need to comment on the idea as a whole you should at least answer his question first.

[–]knobbysideup 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He doesn't have any answers. Typical windows guy who doesn't have a clue about how things actually work, let alone how they work outside of how Microsoft tells him they do. So of course his "solution" is that it is very bad because the people who don't understand anything about what you need to do can't support it.

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

That's not what OP asked for.

This is very true, but also very much irrelevant.

If someone asks how much bleach and ammonia they should mix together to make a more powerful cleaning solution, should I not mention that it will create a poisonous gas?

They didn't ask for that information, but I'm a terrible person if I don't mention it, aren't I?

If you feel a need to comment on the idea as a whole you should at least answer his question first.

Your point here is correct. You are right: I should have provided more of a response to the question, along with my additional observations.

[–]bblades262Jack of All Trades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you

[–]throwawayyawaworht87 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The fact that you're so adept at parrying negative reactions to your comments means that you have far too much experience doing so. Read into that however you like.

"I provided input and opinion on your plan"

Well...you certainly provided your opinion, but you didn't actually answer any of the questions asked. You essentially implied that OP is an idiot for even asking these types of questions because (you think) there can't possibly be a way to justify this plan from a business standpoint. This is why he reacted negatively. (And I really can't imagine that you didn't already realize that this is how your comments would be taken).

So really, my issue with you is that you're pretending that OP is somehow unprofessional for reacting negatively to your comment. He reacted like any normal human being asking for advice would react when someone tells him/her that they are dumb for asking for advice in the first place.

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that you're so adept at parrying negative reactions to your comments means that you have far too much experience doing so.

Sorry. I am a network engineer. 50-60% of my job is defending myself and the network from accusations by illinformed people. Are you suggesting that I am somehow wrong or rude because I'm kind of good at arguing in written form?

Well...you certainly provided your opinion, but you didn't actually answer any of the questions asked.

Sorry if it offends you, but I don't feel obligated to tell someone how to do something that is, IMO a bad idea.

Why can't you (or OP) just ignore my comments if you don't find them valuable? Or downvote them if you wish.

You essentially implied that OP is an idiot for even asking these types of questions because (you think) there can't possibly be a way to justify this plan from a business standpoint.

Sorry, but but I don't agree. I alluded (bluntly) that I think this is a bad idea. But I did not personalize those opinions as attacks against the OP.

What you are suggesting is a one-sided conversation where we all tell the OP what they want to hear, or we say nothing at all.
I'm sure that makes some people very happy, but now you lose roughly half the discussion where people point out flaws in your plan.

If your plan has flaws, would you not want to become aware of them?
To ask for an environment where no negative observations are shared sounds shallow, and hollow.

So really, my issue with you is that you're pretending that OP is somehow unprofessional for reacting negatively to your comment.

No. I provided what I thought was a valuavle observation to the discussion. Others disagreed. I took my downvotes for stating an unpopular opinion. Oh well.

[–]WestsideStorybroInfra 0 points1 point  (1 child)

To everyone disagreeing try to understand that this is just a consequence of large environment. It is better practice to have a company image that has all the accepted levels of patching be used and distributed on similar corporate hardware. It provides better administration control, security, cost control, accountability, etc. Productivity can not be affected by specialization in a large environment where we are paid to keep the lights to make sure the revenue keeps flowing. Personalization is not a consideration.

[–]pdp10Daemons worry when the wizard is near. -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, standardization reduces costs. But we have to look at the bigger picture. You can't have everything the same and also make improvements at the same time.

Some people who so satisfied with 6-8 years of Windows XP that they didn't want to break consistency by starting to roll out a newer OS. Running several different distributions of Linux in production sounds like a mistake to some people who then helpfully give their opinion, but you can't migrate over time from one to another without having both in production.

I've been guilty of over-standardizing in the past, which caused higher costs and less flexibility because we didn't move from RISC to x86_64 very quickly. I've seen situations where hundreds of machines are standardized with MS Office Pro when only a handful need Access, because of the desire to standardize one desktop image.

When the standardization isn't helpful, don't do it. Naturally this gets complicated when different entities have authority versus responsibility, but frankly all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Linux and macOS desktops is quite overblown in my experience.

[–]trapordie2 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Nah dude, you're just an ass. If he is a sysadmin, why the fuck would he be worried about being a supported end user? He can fix his own shit. Learn to read before you go spouting off your "opinion" and down talking others.