I think you hit the nail on the head. Every org I have been a part of that has moved to a more “gui heavy” ticketing system hated it. I used to be a tier 3 myself. The conversion from Zendesk where I had all my keyboard shortcuts and macros and autohotkey scripts mapped to salesforce at a previous gig was awful. This was 5 years ago so take it with a grain of salt. Ticket resolution times shot through the roof as sending a single update became a 6 step affair with significant aiming and 350 tabs to move around. Also, in a different previous job, I was a warehouse picker/placer. We had a web portal I made a CLI client for the POSTs. I was 40-50% faster than the others who had to click each field each time and our auto-enter barcode scanners would submit their form over and over again until all fields were filled in. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:13 AM Alex Buie <abuie@cytracom.com> wrote:
Distilled, for commentary: A properly trained brain can communicate via CLI at a much higher baud rate than a GUI as we have much more tactile bandwidth at our disposal. The fewer senses involved (ie, no aiming) the better.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
I am almost sure that this is not just Network, but this applies to everything people use computers for.
If an application is something that you use infrequently, people will prefer GUI. If an application is something you work hours on end, people will prefer CLI.
I wholly believe that any call center worker will prefer the CLI ticketing system.
I have some anecdotes to support this, like companies migrating from legacy CLI tools to GUI tools. Like Telia UniOSS or factory/warehouse inventory system, in both cases after migration to GUI users were very unhappy, because what used to be fast and didn't require attention to display, now took great care with keyboard, mouse and display.
People will think they will prefer GUI, because we are projecting short-term, and on-boarding to GUI is fast and seems cognitively cheaper compared to scary looking CLI. And managers who make these decisions will never have to use the end product hours every day. The problem looks very different depending on this use-pattern.
Will will be happier and more efficient with the CLI tool they can blaze through, which is responsive, and predictable in that you know what is on screeen after each button press, without looking at the screen. You can navigate deeply nested UX in milliseconds, because you know your workflow and you know the display will catch up.
When I look at a typical network provisioning system, it is essentially an SQL editor and this is the worst possible way you can implement GUI UX.
Of course all of the above is wrongthink and no one will take you seriously if you propose that in the adults table. And making decisions that are good for your career is better than making good decisions.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 21:06, Mark Prosser via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Hi NANOG community,
I posed this question in several chat groups, but I'd like to get your opinions.
Do you love the CLI? Do you hate the CLI? Would you -- or do you already -- enjoy a world where you never need to touch the CLI, to manage your network?
This applies to both provisioning and troubleshooting; to which, you may have different answers.
So far, I've seen a variety of replies around the usual "should/must/must not/should not".
Warm regards,
-- Mark Prosser // E: mark@zealnetworks.ca // W: https://zealnetworks.ca
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/GNZX57LV...
-- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/TNGHG2HI...