Welp, I've put myself in it now, hah. I'm not requesting an answer but maybe if somebody could point me to a good learning resource or two.
I know the below two echo lines, and ways of calling the timestamp function, are functionally equivalent as in they give the same output, but I don't know why.
If I'm understanding the commented pair correctly, echo is echoing the date command, then the sentence, and that output of the date command + sentence is being piped to tee that puts it all in a log file, while also letting the output be seen at the console. I'm not sure about maybe having a double use of the echo command though.
The uncommented pair, is expanding the timestamp function that then tells echo to use the sentence after it as a parameter?
#!/bin/zsh
timestamp() {
# echo `date "+%a %b %d %T"`
echo `date "+%a %b %d %T"` "${1}"
}
LOGFILE="logs/test.log"
# echo $(timestamp) "This should be the day/time formatting I want" | tee -a $LOGFILE
timestamp "This should be the day/time formatting I want" | tee -a $LOGFILE
My zsh is bad but I think the ${1} will catch the parameter you specify after running the script.
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
The commented version of timestamp() prints a datetime string. Wrapping the timestamp call in $() means capture the output of that function. So the echo command at the bottom is printing the datetime string output from timestamp() plus the explicit description string and sending that combined string to tee.
The uncommented version is calling the timestamp function with the description string as it's first parameter. Timestamp is using echo to print the datetime string plus the string of parameter 1, which is what that "${1}" is, and outputs this combined string. This combined output string from the timestamp call is then sent to tee.
So in both cases tee is getting a string containing the datetime plus description.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It's a mini-PC that comes with OPNSense preinstalled. The CPU/RAM specs are kind of not great, but it has 4 gigabit ethernet ports on board which is rare for mini-PCs.
If it turns out that it sucks, I'll repurpose the mini-PC to, I dunno, pass butter.
Then I found a couple of Ruckus R710s used on eBay. (Thanks, That_Guy for that recommendation.)
For the switch I wanted something with PoE and a decent port count, so I went with a TP-Link 24-port PoE switch. It also has SFPs, which are overkill for me, but whatevs.
Welp, I've put myself in it now, hah. I'm not requesting an answer but maybe if somebody could point me to a good learning resource or two.
I know the below two echo lines, and ways of calling the timestamp function, are functionally equivalent as in they give the same output, but I don't know why.
If I'm understanding the commented pair correctly, echo is echoing the date command, then the sentence, and that output of the date command + sentence is being piped to tee that puts it all in a log file, while also letting the output be seen at the console. I'm not sure about maybe having a double use of the echo command though.
The uncommented pair, is expanding the timestamp function that then tells echo to use the sentence after it as a parameter?
#!/bin/zsh
timestamp() {
# echo `date "+%a %b %d %T"`
echo `date "+%a %b %d %T"` "${1}"
}
LOGFILE="logs/test.log"
# echo $(timestamp) "This should be the day/time formatting I want" | tee -a $LOGFILE
timestamp "This should be the day/time formatting I want" | tee -a $LOGFILE
So, in neither case is echo outputting the date command, per se. It's outputting the result of the date command. This is a strange distinction to draw, to be fair. The ` (grave marks) are used, in my experience, when the result of the command isn't normally accessible or usable on its own.
In this case, date is already sending the result to the same place that echo does, so there's no (apparent) value to using this setup. Which is why I'm bothering to draw the distinction. I don't have a great example of what I mean, but maybe try this: from the prompt, just type
`date "+%a"`
within the function:
the uncommented echo statement will output (in addition to the current time as specified), the first term that follows the 'call'. This is due to the ${1} sequence. In your commented version, you could have multiple sentences and you'd get them all.
regarding the call itself:
timestamp
echo $(timestamp)
may have some subtle differences, but I don't recognize them at this time.
Bendery is close to being correct, because you can use ${1} outside of a function to capture the terms that follow the call to the script. If we create top and bottom as
#!/bin/sh
foo() {
echo "${1}"
}
foo HI
and
#!/bin/sh
echo "${1}"
and then execute them:
./top hello
./bottom hello
only bottom will output hello; top will always output HI.
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
I've had basically this conversation a few times:
Underling: "Can you call manager?"
Me: "Manager can call our helpdesk line at 555-1212."
Underling: "Okay but can't you just call her?"
Me: "If she needs to reach me directly, she can call me directly. But first she should call the help desk."
Underling: "She tried calling the helpdesk and nobody answered."
Me: "That means the helpdesk is helping other people. She can leave a voicemail or send an email to support@company.com."
Underling: "Why can't you just call her?"
Me: "Because that's like shoving ahead in line."
Underling: "Ugh. Just call her."
*keep going in circles until the underling gets frustrated and hangs up*
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
I've had basically this conversation a few times:
Underling: "Can you call manager?"
Me: "Manager can call our helpdesk line at 555-1212."
Underling: "Okay but can't you just call her?"
Me: "If she needs to reach me directly, she can call me directly. But first she should call the help desk."
Underling: "She tried calling the helpdesk and nobody answered."
Me: "That means the helpdesk is helping other people. She can leave a voicemail or send an email to support@company.com."
Underling: "Why can't you just call her?"
Me: "Because that's like shoving ahead in line."
Underling: "Ugh. Just call her."
*keep going in circles until the underling gets frustrated and hangs up*
I updated my number in the company directory to be the help desk line.
Funny story. Started my new job today. I don't have much of a read on the job itself since it's been a day, and I did spend most of the first day literally getting building tour, HR orientation, etc.
But the Director of IT here (fancy title for IT manager), who is my boss, and the guy who hired me.. told me that last week he got a job offer he couldn't refuse so he's gone at the end of the year. He was apologetic and said he knows it's kind of a bad time to do that with me starting, but I can't fault the guy for taking a new opportunity. There's another senior IT position here that I'm replacing, he's actually retiring at the end of January so I have that time with him for cross training. In terms of the infrastructure/server staff we have another guy who is a tier 1 position... and that's it. (there's a couple BA type roles).
so um... in about 6 weeks I'm going to be the senior infrastructure position, at least until they fill the director/manager role.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
I've had basically this conversation a few times:
Underling: "Can you call manager?"
Me: "Manager can call our helpdesk line at 555-1212."
Underling: "Okay but can't you just call her?"
Me: "If she needs to reach me directly, she can call me directly. But first she should call the help desk."
Underling: "She tried calling the helpdesk and nobody answered."
Me: "That means the helpdesk is helping other people. She can leave a voicemail or send an email to support@company.com."
Underling: "Why can't you just call her?"
Me: "Because that's like shoving ahead in line."
Underling: "Ugh. Just call her."
*keep going in circles until the underling gets frustrated and hangs up*
The classic debate over who should be in a VIP queue.
What is this I don't even.
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Back when I was on the service team, I used to let managers and important people skip the line and get immediate support. It's a little different for an MSP because you have to keep certain people happy to maintain the business agreement. I learned who could get blown off for a day or 2 and who got right to the head of the line. Unless you're dealing with 100s of VIPs, it's easy enough to figure out they key people to keep happy so everyone else stays off your back.
Back when I was on the service team, I used to let managers and important people skip the line and get immediate support. It's a little different for an MSP because you have to keep certain people happy to maintain the business agreement. I learned who could get blown off for a day or 2 and who got right to the head of the line. Unless you're dealing with 100s of VIPs, it's easy enough to figure out they key people to keep happy so everyone else stays off your back.
The problem I have with this is that the reasonable people who are nice and understand you are busy are the ones who get shit on the most because the angry crazy motherfuckers have gotta be dealt with immediately. And I hate that with a passion. I'd rather have a good rapport with my users/customers who aren't assholes.
I'm going to add in the caveat that I understand your boss will likely feel very differently about this and wants the money machine to keep printing money.
Funny story. One of the things that interested me about this new job I started this week was that one of the big 2022 IT projects is to move most, if not all of the on prem infrastructure here into Azure. I haven't been part of a project like that so that's interesting to me.
And now as I'm getting trained up on the org, one of the reasons I'm learning that this is happening is because about 3/4 of the infrastucture is on Server 2012 R2, which is only supported for another year, which is ok, I guess. But the other 1/4 of the infrastructure is on Server 2008 R2. :bigfrown:
So yeah.... that terrifies me a bit.
At the very least none of this stuff is physical. everything in prod is living on a less than 3 year old hypervisor cluster that is reasonabl modern, just the VM's that host the prod data are old.
Funny story. One of the things that interested me about this new job I started this week was that one of the big 2022 IT projects is to move most, if not all of the on prem infrastructure here into Azure. I haven't been part of a project like that so that's interesting to me.
And now as I'm getting trained up on the org, one of the reasons I'm learning that this is happening is because about 3/4 of the infrastucture is on Server 2012 R2, which is only supported for another year, which is ok, I guess. But the other 1/4 of the infrastructure is on Server 2008 R2. :bigfrown:
So yeah.... that terrifies me a bit.
At the very least none of this stuff is physical. everything in prod is living on a less than 3 year old hypervisor cluster that is reasonabl modern, just the VM's that host the prod data are old.
I'm guessing having old OS's on VM's is a pretty common occurrence. Especially when you can migrate them from host to host. Moving up in OS versions is sometimes forced by hardware retirement, and with VM's no such retirement really takes place, etc.
I know I've run into that with our CentOS 7 containers. We really should be moving on with Rocky or Ubuntu 20.04 but they are getting maintenance updates until 2024 so, meh!
Funny story. One of the things that interested me about this new job I started this week was that one of the big 2022 IT projects is to move most, if not all of the on prem infrastructure here into Azure. I haven't been part of a project like that so that's interesting to me.
And now as I'm getting trained up on the org, one of the reasons I'm learning that this is happening is because about 3/4 of the infrastucture is on Server 2012 R2, which is only supported for another year, which is ok, I guess. But the other 1/4 of the infrastructure is on Server 2008 R2. :bigfrown:
So yeah.... that terrifies me a bit.
At the very least none of this stuff is physical. everything in prod is living on a less than 3 year old hypervisor cluster that is reasonabl modern, just the VM's that host the prod data are old.
I'm guessing having old OS's on VM's is a pretty common occurrence. Especially when you can migrate them from host to host. Moving up in OS versions is sometimes forced by hardware retirement, and with VM's no such retirement really takes place, etc.
I know I've run into that with our CentOS 7 containers. We really should be moving on with Rocky or Ubuntu 20.04 but they are getting maintenance updates until 2024 so, meh!
The stuff that's still under support is one thing. Server 2012 is antiquated, but it's supported. The server 2008 stuff scares me, since that's been out of support for a couple years now. A couple jobs ago I spent 5 months on migrating stuff off of 2008 when it was in its last year of support and now here I am again with Server 2008 stuff.
They also haven't patched any of the supported stuff since the printnightmare fiasco because they've been afraid of more stuff breaking. Which I get... but yikes.
Funny story. One of the things that interested me about this new job I started this week was that one of the big 2022 IT projects is to move most, if not all of the on prem infrastructure here into Azure. I haven't been part of a project like that so that's interesting to me.
And now as I'm getting trained up on the org, one of the reasons I'm learning that this is happening is because about 3/4 of the infrastucture is on Server 2012 R2, which is only supported for another year, which is ok, I guess. But the other 1/4 of the infrastructure is on Server 2008 R2. :bigfrown:
So yeah.... that terrifies me a bit.
At the very least none of this stuff is physical. everything in prod is living on a less than 3 year old hypervisor cluster that is reasonabl modern, just the VM's that host the prod data are old.
I'm guessing having old OS's on VM's is a pretty common occurrence. Especially when you can migrate them from host to host. Moving up in OS versions is sometimes forced by hardware retirement, and with VM's no such retirement really takes place, etc.
I know I've run into that with our CentOS 7 containers. We really should be moving on with Rocky or Ubuntu 20.04 but they are getting maintenance updates until 2024 so, meh!
The stuff that's still under support is one thing. Server 2012 is antiquated, but it's supported. The server 2008 stuff scares me, since that's been out of support for a couple years now. A couple jobs ago I spent 5 months on migrating stuff off of 2008 when it was in its last year of support and now here I am again with Server 2008 stuff.
They also haven't patched any of the supported stuff since the printnightmare fiasco because they've been afraid of more stuff breaking. Which I get... but yikes.
I hear ya.
I have a colo who's running a CentOS 6 Apache server and I've told them their shit's gonna end up in the dumpster the second they call me for anything other than an upgrade/replacement. That thing terrifies me.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't even bother trying to upgrade Server 08 to 2019/2022. Better to just spin up a new VM and move over what you need. You can unassign roles from the old 08 as you move them over. Finally demote and remove from the AD inventory. SQL DBs could be tricky but easy enough. Your biggest challenge would be relicensing software.
My pet peeve is people asking other people to have me call them. If you have an issue or a question, call me directly or contact me. Don't have someone else talk to me to tell me to call them.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
I've had basically this conversation a few times:
Underling: "Can you call manager?"
Me: "Manager can call our helpdesk line at 555-1212."
Underling: "Okay but can't you just call her?"
Me: "If she needs to reach me directly, she can call me directly. But first she should call the help desk."
Underling: "She tried calling the helpdesk and nobody answered."
Me: "That means the helpdesk is helping other people. She can leave a voicemail or send an email to support@company.com."
Underling: "Why can't you just call her?"
Me: "Because that's like shoving ahead in line."
Underling: "Ugh. Just call her."
*keep going in circles until the underling gets frustrated and hangs up*
The classic debate over who should be in a VIP queue.
I had to Google "VIP queue."
God fuck that concept entirely off
Thanks I hate it!
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I wouldn't even bother trying to upgrade Server 08 to 2019/2022. Better to just spin up a new VM and move over what you need. You can unassign roles from the old 08 as you move them over. Finally demote and remove from the AD inventory. SQL DBs could be tricky but easy enough. Your biggest challenge would be relicensing software.
Absolutely this. In-place upgrades are the devil. Even when they go well, they allow you whitewash a myriad of bad IT habits, unresolved technical debt, and general mediocrity.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Back when I was on the service team, I used to let managers and important people skip the line and get immediate support.
Shit like this is why IT is perpetually understaffed.
If you insulate decision-makers from the ramifications of IT understaffing, then you never get adequate staffing.
I let the managers THINK they are making decisions. The real key is to come up with solutions before they can. It's a tricky game to play but basically you give them several options, all but 1 are obviously terrible and wrong. Even if you have to fudge some numbers to make the other options less attractive. Bottom line, managers should be approving your solutions not coming up with their own.
Back when I was on the service team, I used to let managers and important people skip the line and get immediate support.
Shit like this is why IT is perpetually understaffed.
If you insulate decision-makers from the ramifications of IT understaffing, then you never get adequate staffing.
I let the managers THINK they are making decisions. The real key is to come up with solutions before they can. It's a tricky game to play but basically you give them several options, all but 1 are obviously terrible and wrong. Even if you have to fudge some numbers to make the other options less attractive. Bottom line, managers should be approving your solutions not coming up with their own.
That isn't really what I'm talking about though.
I largely agree with you, I just think we're talking about different things. What you're talking about is good advice for things like network designs, or helpdesk procedures, or purchasing. It's a strong philosophy. It's similar to the idea of giving children forced choices. Offer 2-3 options that you find amenable and let the individual choose between those specific options. And you can nudge one of the options to be more attractive than the other.
I'm talking about more high-level, department staffing level stuff, like whether IT can add 6 new employees this year, or zero new employees, or gets a headcount cut. I can give my recommendations but that's much bigger decision (and subject to a lot more resistance and inertia).
If the CEO, COO, CIO, and President of HR all get a special VIP line to the helpdesk, then they won't feel the pain if helpdesk needs more people.
Does that mean they should wait in the standard queue every time? No, because it has to be balanced with reputation management. Every once in a while, somebody should rush in like a superhero and impress the hell out of the C-level execs and VIPs. Show them that our individuals are talented. They can have a little bit of VIP priority, as a treat.
For the most part, make them eat the dog food. If helpdesk SLAs are too slow for the CEO, they're too slow for the lowest tier of staff.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Anyone have experience with G Suite, Google Workspace, or whatever they are calling it these days? A client has a G Suite Legacy setup for some secondary emails. Their computers were switched recently from a workgroup to a domain and the Profile Migration tool from ForensIT was used to switch the local profiles to domain.
After this change, anyone that had their G Suite account linked to Outlook started to receive password prompts constantly and I had to remove the accounts from Outlook. When I attempt to add them back, it goes through the Google login prompts for email and password, then skips to the Allow/Deny page for sharing the services with Microsoft, I don't actually get the "Verify this device" prompt. Fun part is that I can add the account on a different device and it gives the Verify prompt and then can Allow the services - using a different profile on the end user PC though gives the same behaviour though so I can't create a new Windows profile to fix it.
I found the Endpoints listed in the Google Admin page and removed them but I still see the same behaviour as before on any computer that previously was signed into Outlook with the G Suite accounts. It's almost like Google has verified the systems already and won't allow them to be verified again.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I should also state that I can use the Google Workspace connector for Outlook and the account can be added no problem, but I don't see how to add an account to an existing Outlook profile this way.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I have used that and can add the account without issue, main problem is their primary account is through 365 and we don't want to be bouncing around between profiles.
I did get one step further though by turning on 2FA for one of the accounts, I can now verify the account but the Allow/Deny prompt is still greyed out.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I wouldn't even bother trying to upgrade Server 08 to 2019/2022. Better to just spin up a new VM and move over what you need. You can unassign roles from the old 08 as you move them over. Finally demote and remove from the AD inventory. SQL DBs could be tricky but easy enough. Your biggest challenge would be relicensing software.
oh there is no way in hell I’d ever do an in place upgrade on a Windows Server. I don’t hate myself that much.
Current plan is actually to move all the workloads into Azure, killing a bunch of birds with one stone. a lot of the infrastructure here supports an old Dynamics install that’s moving to Dynamics 365.
From what I’m gleaming from my onboarding/training management kind of waffled for a couple years on whether or not to spend money on keeping things on prem or going to a cloud based infrastructure, with the IT team recommending getting everything into the cloud. in late 2020 and into 2021 all of the on prem productivity suite and email were migrated to office 365 which the executives have been happy with so they decided it was ok to go with Dynamics 365, so that’s a 2022 project.
Ah, Dynamics 365, where Dynamics Admins need Global Administrator rights for ... reasons. (Oh wait, no MIcrosoft fixed it, they can just be Exchange Administrator instead.. well, that's a tiny, tiny bit better).
(Hey, guess which application migration I'm involved in right now?)
Back when I was on the service team, I used to let managers and important people skip the line and get immediate support.
Shit like this is why IT is perpetually understaffed.
If you insulate decision-makers from the ramifications of IT understaffing, then you never get adequate staffing.
I let the managers THINK they are making decisions. The real key is to come up with solutions before they can. It's a tricky game to play but basically you give them several options, all but 1 are obviously terrible and wrong. Even if you have to fudge some numbers to make the other options less attractive. Bottom line, managers should be approving your solutions not coming up with their own.
That isn't really what I'm talking about though.
I largely agree with you, I just think we're talking about different things. What you're talking about is good advice for things like network designs, or helpdesk procedures, or purchasing. It's a strong philosophy. It's similar to the idea of giving children forced choices. Offer 2-3 options that you find amenable and let the individual choose between those specific options. And you can nudge one of the options to be more attractive than the other.
I'm talking about more high-level, department staffing level stuff, like whether IT can add 6 new employees this year, or zero new employees, or gets a headcount cut. I can give my recommendations but that's much bigger decision (and subject to a lot more resistance and inertia).
If the CEO, COO, CIO, and President of HR all get a special VIP line to the helpdesk, then they won't feel the pain if helpdesk needs more people.
Does that mean they should wait in the standard queue every time? No, because it has to be balanced with reputation management. Every once in a while, somebody should rush in like a superhero and impress the hell out of the C-level execs and VIPs. Show them that our individuals are talented. They can have a little bit of VIP priority, as a treat.
For the most part, make them eat the dog food. If helpdesk SLAs are too slow for the CEO, they're too slow for the lowest tier of staff.
Yes and no. C Suiters will likely rarely call into the help desk as their jobs are mostly meetings. Helpdesk staffing should be determined based on volume, SLA's met, etc. - lots of good metrics that help describe the state of things. Relying on seat of the pants "how long did I wait?" to drive priority - that's a crap shoot as if they call in during a slow time, they won't feel any pain and say "it's fine".
VIP support exists because, honestly, if an exec's computer doesn't work during a board meeting or major partnership work - that's a significant problem with implications reaching into the millions (potentially). Not to mention many times it means they can't see the work of their organization, which screws lower level people out of being able to make their case on items like "why the help desk needs more funding".
Random worker has an issue? Yeah, it sucks, but it's maybe a few grand in lost productivity.
+2
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
Remote user: My computer blue screens at random times.
Me: <does some remote tech support> Call Dell for the warranty support and see what they have to say about it. It looks like it's hardware.
Remote user: I'm busy ALL the time. I can't do it when I'm on duty.
Me: Call Dell when you're not on duty.
Remote user: Ok
<two months later>
Email to the department from remote user: The software isn't working for me after my computer crashed.
Me: Did you call Dell?
Remote user: No.
Me internally: Whatever. Good luck to you.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
reminds me of the time I had a guy who told me he was too busy during the day to reboot his computer to fix a problem. So one day, he went the entire day without being able to use a critical piece of software that he needed to do his job because he just couldn't take 5 minutes to reboot.
2 weeks later, the same thing happened. He called, same complaint that he didn't have time to reboot his computer, and told me I just needed to fix it without a reboot. So... I spent about an hour clicking around on it, not doing anything, because the problem was a stuck service that couldn't even be force quit without a reboot. (it was some terrible software and this was 2009-ish).
An hour later, he called me, asked me what was taking so long. I told him what the issue was, and that he choices were to have me continue to not fix it without rebooting his computer, or he could take 5 minutes and restart the computer when the issue cropped up.
People just hate rebooting for some reason. I have to deal with ScanSnap scanners all the time where the software randomly decides that the scanner is in use by another application and it won't scan. This is fixed 100% of the time with a restart but they'd rather make a fuss than do a 2 minute reboot to fix it.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
Posts
My zsh is bad but I think the ${1} will catch the parameter you specify after running the script.
so .\script should just output "`date "+%a %b %d %T"`"
but .\script deeznuts would output " echo `date "+%a %b %d %T"` deeznuts"
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/31414/how-can-i-pass-a-command-line-argument-into-a-shell-script
The uncommented version is calling the timestamp function with the description string as it's first parameter. Timestamp is using echo to print the datetime string plus the string of parameter 1, which is what that "${1}" is, and outputs this combined string. This combined output string from the timestamp call is then sent to tee.
So in both cases tee is getting a string containing the datetime plus description.
Yep. I loathe this and I don't tolerate it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I ordered this little guy
https://mitxpc.com/products/ofw-hbjc430u941
It's a mini-PC that comes with OPNSense preinstalled. The CPU/RAM specs are kind of not great, but it has 4 gigabit ethernet ports on board which is rare for mini-PCs.
If it turns out that it sucks, I'll repurpose the mini-PC to, I dunno, pass butter.
Then I found a couple of Ruckus R710s used on eBay. (Thanks, That_Guy for that recommendation.)
For the switch I wanted something with PoE and a decent port count, so I went with a TP-Link 24-port PoE switch. It also has SFPs, which are overkill for me, but whatevs.
https://www.tp-link.com/us/business-networking/omada-sdn-switch/tl-sg2428p/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So, in neither case is echo outputting the date command, per se. It's outputting the result of the date command. This is a strange distinction to draw, to be fair. The ` (grave marks) are used, in my experience, when the result of the command isn't normally accessible or usable on its own.
In this case, date is already sending the result to the same place that echo does, so there's no (apparent) value to using this setup. Which is why I'm bothering to draw the distinction. I don't have a great example of what I mean, but maybe try this: from the prompt, just type
`date "+%a"`
within the function:
the uncommented echo statement will output (in addition to the current time as specified), the first term that follows the 'call'. This is due to the ${1} sequence. In your commented version, you could have multiple sentences and you'd get them all.
regarding the call itself:
timestamp
echo $(timestamp)
may have some subtle differences, but I don't recognize them at this time.
Bendery is close to being correct, because you can use ${1} outside of a function to capture the terms that follow the call to the script. If we create top and bottom as
#!/bin/sh foo() { echo "${1}" } foo HIand
#!/bin/sh echo "${1}"and then execute them:./top hello
./bottom hello
only bottom will output hello; top will always output HI.
I've had basically this conversation a few times:
Underling: "Can you call manager?"
Me: "Manager can call our helpdesk line at 555-1212."
Underling: "Okay but can't you just call her?"
Me: "If she needs to reach me directly, she can call me directly. But first she should call the help desk."
Underling: "She tried calling the helpdesk and nobody answered."
Me: "That means the helpdesk is helping other people. She can leave a voicemail or send an email to support@company.com."
Underling: "Why can't you just call her?"
Me: "Because that's like shoving ahead in line."
Underling: "Ugh. Just call her."
*keep going in circles until the underling gets frustrated and hangs up*
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I updated my number in the company directory to be the help desk line.
But the Director of IT here (fancy title for IT manager), who is my boss, and the guy who hired me.. told me that last week he got a job offer he couldn't refuse so he's gone at the end of the year. He was apologetic and said he knows it's kind of a bad time to do that with me starting, but I can't fault the guy for taking a new opportunity. There's another senior IT position here that I'm replacing, he's actually retiring at the end of January so I have that time with him for cross training. In terms of the infrastructure/server staff we have another guy who is a tier 1 position... and that's it. (there's a couple BA type roles).
so um... in about 6 weeks I'm going to be the senior infrastructure position, at least until they fill the director/manager role.
Feels like I just jumped into the deep end.
Log4J CVE...
"Help the vendor hasn't released a new WAR file"
Christ, I hate being right.
https://www.amazon.com/CapRack18-Baseball-Cap-Holder-Black/dp/B001DTA6MY/
I call that 'Tuesday'.
The classic debate over who should be in a VIP queue.
The problem I have with this is that the reasonable people who are nice and understand you are busy are the ones who get shit on the most because the angry crazy motherfuckers have gotta be dealt with immediately. And I hate that with a passion. I'd rather have a good rapport with my users/customers who aren't assholes.
I'm going to add in the caveat that I understand your boss will likely feel very differently about this and wants the money machine to keep printing money.
And now as I'm getting trained up on the org, one of the reasons I'm learning that this is happening is because about 3/4 of the infrastucture is on Server 2012 R2, which is only supported for another year, which is ok, I guess. But the other 1/4 of the infrastructure is on Server 2008 R2. :bigfrown:
So yeah.... that terrifies me a bit.
At the very least none of this stuff is physical. everything in prod is living on a less than 3 year old hypervisor cluster that is reasonabl modern, just the VM's that host the prod data are old.
I'm guessing having old OS's on VM's is a pretty common occurrence. Especially when you can migrate them from host to host. Moving up in OS versions is sometimes forced by hardware retirement, and with VM's no such retirement really takes place, etc.
I know I've run into that with our CentOS 7 containers. We really should be moving on with Rocky or Ubuntu 20.04 but they are getting maintenance updates until 2024 so, meh!
The stuff that's still under support is one thing. Server 2012 is antiquated, but it's supported. The server 2008 stuff scares me, since that's been out of support for a couple years now. A couple jobs ago I spent 5 months on migrating stuff off of 2008 when it was in its last year of support and now here I am again with Server 2008 stuff.
They also haven't patched any of the supported stuff since the printnightmare fiasco because they've been afraid of more stuff breaking. Which I get... but yikes.
I hear ya.
I have a colo who's running a CentOS 6 Apache server and I've told them their shit's gonna end up in the dumpster the second they call me for anything other than an upgrade/replacement. That thing terrifies me.
I had to Google "VIP queue."
God fuck that concept entirely off
Thanks I hate it!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Shit like this is why IT is perpetually understaffed.
If you insulate decision-makers from the ramifications of IT understaffing, then you never get adequate staffing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Absolutely this. In-place upgrades are the devil. Even when they go well, they allow you whitewash a myriad of bad IT habits, unresolved technical debt, and general mediocrity.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think we should have VIP queues where those people just don't get service (except I'd still like to keep my job).
I let the managers THINK they are making decisions. The real key is to come up with solutions before they can. It's a tricky game to play but basically you give them several options, all but 1 are obviously terrible and wrong. Even if you have to fudge some numbers to make the other options less attractive. Bottom line, managers should be approving your solutions not coming up with their own.
That isn't really what I'm talking about though.
I largely agree with you, I just think we're talking about different things. What you're talking about is good advice for things like network designs, or helpdesk procedures, or purchasing. It's a strong philosophy. It's similar to the idea of giving children forced choices. Offer 2-3 options that you find amenable and let the individual choose between those specific options. And you can nudge one of the options to be more attractive than the other.
I'm talking about more high-level, department staffing level stuff, like whether IT can add 6 new employees this year, or zero new employees, or gets a headcount cut. I can give my recommendations but that's much bigger decision (and subject to a lot more resistance and inertia).
If the CEO, COO, CIO, and President of HR all get a special VIP line to the helpdesk, then they won't feel the pain if helpdesk needs more people.
Does that mean they should wait in the standard queue every time? No, because it has to be balanced with reputation management. Every once in a while, somebody should rush in like a superhero and impress the hell out of the C-level execs and VIPs. Show them that our individuals are talented. They can have a little bit of VIP priority, as a treat.
For the most part, make them eat the dog food. If helpdesk SLAs are too slow for the CEO, they're too slow for the lowest tier of staff.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
After this change, anyone that had their G Suite account linked to Outlook started to receive password prompts constantly and I had to remove the accounts from Outlook. When I attempt to add them back, it goes through the Google login prompts for email and password, then skips to the Allow/Deny page for sharing the services with Microsoft, I don't actually get the "Verify this device" prompt. Fun part is that I can add the account on a different device and it gives the Verify prompt and then can Allow the services - using a different profile on the end user PC though gives the same behaviour though so I can't create a new Windows profile to fix it.
I found the Endpoints listed in the Google Admin page and removed them but I still see the same behaviour as before on any computer that previously was signed into Outlook with the G Suite accounts. It's almost like Google has verified the systems already and won't allow them to be verified again.
https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gssmo/
I did get one step further though by turning on 2FA for one of the accounts, I can now verify the account but the Allow/Deny prompt is still greyed out.
This is the exact issue I have but the fix listed doesn't do anything: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/unable-to-add-a-gmail-account-to-outlook-allow-button-grayed-out-bfecee7b-5db3-4a6c-b73c-ff9173c21960
oh there is no way in hell I’d ever do an in place upgrade on a Windows Server. I don’t hate myself that much.
Current plan is actually to move all the workloads into Azure, killing a bunch of birds with one stone. a lot of the infrastructure here supports an old Dynamics install that’s moving to Dynamics 365.
From what I’m gleaming from my onboarding/training management kind of waffled for a couple years on whether or not to spend money on keeping things on prem or going to a cloud based infrastructure, with the IT team recommending getting everything into the cloud. in late 2020 and into 2021 all of the on prem productivity suite and email were migrated to office 365 which the executives have been happy with so they decided it was ok to go with Dynamics 365, so that’s a 2022 project.
(Hey, guess which application migration I'm involved in right now?)
Yes and no. C Suiters will likely rarely call into the help desk as their jobs are mostly meetings. Helpdesk staffing should be determined based on volume, SLA's met, etc. - lots of good metrics that help describe the state of things. Relying on seat of the pants "how long did I wait?" to drive priority - that's a crap shoot as if they call in during a slow time, they won't feel any pain and say "it's fine".
VIP support exists because, honestly, if an exec's computer doesn't work during a board meeting or major partnership work - that's a significant problem with implications reaching into the millions (potentially). Not to mention many times it means they can't see the work of their organization, which screws lower level people out of being able to make their case on items like "why the help desk needs more funding".
Random worker has an issue? Yeah, it sucks, but it's maybe a few grand in lost productivity.
Me: <does some remote tech support> Call Dell for the warranty support and see what they have to say about it. It looks like it's hardware.
Remote user: I'm busy ALL the time. I can't do it when I'm on duty.
Me: Call Dell when you're not on duty.
Remote user: Ok
<two months later>
Email to the department from remote user: The software isn't working for me after my computer crashed.
Me: Did you call Dell?
Remote user: No.
Me internally: Whatever. Good luck to you.
2 weeks later, the same thing happened. He called, same complaint that he didn't have time to reboot his computer, and told me I just needed to fix it without a reboot. So... I spent about an hour clicking around on it, not doing anything, because the problem was a stuck service that couldn't even be force quit without a reboot. (it was some terrible software and this was 2009-ish).
An hour later, he called me, asked me what was taking so long. I told him what the issue was, and that he choices were to have me continue to not fix it without rebooting his computer, or he could take 5 minutes and restart the computer when the issue cropped up.
He never called me about that issue again.
- Yes.
- LIAR.
I've been in IT...15+ years, and nobody who says they rebooted their computer or cleared their cookies / cache when asked by IT has ever done that.
The few people who have done that before calling support will always tell you up front the troubleshooting steps they've taken.