Oh man, what a blast from the past. Another great site in the same vein was Acts of Gord[-1], which followed the exploits of a used game store manager. Similarly semi-apocryphal and perhaps a little overstated, but highly enjoyable.
I don't really have a hard time believing that running a used game store in what is clearly not the best part of town over the course of a couple decades would produce Gord's stories.
As the phrase goes, shit happens. Nothing interesting may happen on a normal day but there's a lot of days and eventually you roll up all manner of interesting occurrences.
I’ve never liked the BOFH stories, even when I first encountered them in the early 90s I never thought they were particularly funny, and as I’ve since become a more experienced sysadmin I’ve actually come to despise them and the attitude they symbolize. Sure, the stories are parodies and written in an exaggerated manner, but the underlying humor seems to be saying “Isn’t this what we all really think? Isn’t this how we would all wish we could behave?”, which is an attitude I find deplorable.
I’ve elaborated about this here in the past, first here:
I agree there's a power fantasy element to them, but they're a reflection of sysadmins' lack of real power. They're at the bottom of the pecking order and are only noticed when things go wrong, or when users want to project their own frustrations onto somebody lower in the office pecking order. They have incredible destructive potential at their fingertips yet no way to use it in the protection of their own dignity, since doing their job well means taking abuse silently when it's directed at them. Pushing back against misdirected blame and anger would go against the real power structure and would be castigated as a lack of empathy for the poor users.
Honestly, the best sysadmins are probably the ones who resort to fantasies like this. Real unscrupulous sysadmins can force people to kiss their ass before they'll do their job. If you've ever worked in an office where the sysadmin is a highly visible and highly respected person, and everyone is keen to treat them well and be on their good side, it's because they've made it their policy to do the simplest aspects of their job grudgingly, theatrically, and only after a lot of cajoling. Meanwhile at another company there's somebody doing the same job ten times better but getting treated like an intern precisely because they do the job better, without forcing people to beg. And that sysadmin is the one who needs the power fantasy.
(I was not sure whether to use the present tense or past tense in this post. My memories of company sysadmins are from the 1990s and early 2000s, and I have no idea if sysadmins like that exist anymore.)
Well, there's something to be said for lightening up, and unless assaulted, we choose to be offended. I suppose, similarly, most really can't stand Jerry nor find his behavior humorous; he's such a jerk to Tom.
The art of parody can be low or high brow. I suppose there is some low brow parody I do not appreciate (e.g. Jim Carrey's Fire Marshal Bill Burns I find disturbing), but BOFH hits too close to home for me to criticize (beyond literary). Some users can be demanding, needy, ungrateful pieces of work, and fantasizing about retaliation without consequences relieves pressure.
Contrast BOFH to dissident heating engineer Harry Tuttle, not opposites, but somewhat complimentary. BOFH is probably more believable, but Harry wins the absurdity contest. Also compare both to Dr. Gregory House and the characters on Seinfeld. I will not explain why we sometimes like horrible people, but I think it is intersting that Tuttle stands out conspicuously gallant and heroic among them.
We even like antiheroes in work that is not parody, such as Clint Eastwood's unnamed characters, Han Solo, Michael Corleone and Rambo. There are other crossovers like BOFH, such as Captain Jack Sparrow, a character that is similarly both a parody and an antihero, or Alex DeLarge, a satiric antihero. Also notable is Mr. Robot's Elliot Alderson, perhaps a closely-related descendent of BOFH.
My psychological intuition tells me that the one with power phantasies is the cajoling sysadmin - not the humble one. I find it weird that you would think it's the other way around.
I would think it would be weird to fantasize about taking drastic, socially unsanctioned action to deal with circumstances that you are already dealing with effectively in real life.
People do commonly fantasize about using violence to escape humiliating situations, but very few people take violent action against their tormentors, so it stands to reason that most of the people who fantasize about violence aren't violent in real life.
somebody resorting to cajoling is maybe acting "effectively" but certainly not "efficiently" with regard to personal menal hygiene and most likely suffers from that behaviour. also I'd suspect a source for this behaviour which might well be engaging in rage phantasies about how to respond to perceived injustice and disrespect by peers.
> Sure, the stories are parodies and written in an exaggerated manner, but the underlying humor seems to be saying “Isn’t this what we all really think? Isn’t this how we would all wish we could behave?”, which is an attitude I find deplorable.
No? Not everyone sees all types of humorous behavior as something to aspire to. Did people always look at Chaplin's antics as the fool and think "that's funny, I should act the same way"? Do people look at asshole comedians because that's how they wish they were?
I think it's more accurate to say that people find extreme behavior funny because we have urges sometimes to act the same, and while we recognize that's not a good way to act, it can be cathartic to see someone unrestrained by social norms in a fictional setting where nobody is actually hurt or upset.
I'll be the first to condemn someone for harmful behaviors to others without cause, but fiction is another thing entirely. Even if I didn't find this type of fiction humorous, I would be very careful not to ascribe motivations and idea about those that do. People have many reasons for enjoying stories, and they may be entirely alien to your own way of thinking, so generally I find it's best to deal with the individual (if needed) and not the source.
> I think it's more accurate to say that people find extreme behavior funny because we have urges sometimes to act the same, and while we recognize that's not a good way to act, it can be cathartic to see someone unrestrained by social norms in a fictional setting where nobody is actually hurt or upset.
This is exactly the attitude which I called “deplorable”. I dont’t feel that urge, as I explained in my linked comments.
>> I’ve actually come to despise them and the attitude they symbolize.
The issue is, they don't necessarily symbolize an attitude. That's an assumption on your part, and in my opinion, and erroneous one. These stories let people see urges they have played out in a fictional setting, and explore how it might play out. This can relieve the pressure people might feel to actually act in these ways, because they get some outlet, while also seeing how the behavior is problematic in real life.
It's fine that you don't like this fiction, but when you start projecting your own interpretations of what the fiction means or symbolizes, you are projecting your own interpretation and judgement onto others who may consume that fiction in an entirely different way. It doesn't symbolize what you say it does, it at most makes you feel something about it. To others it makes them feel something different. In neither case does it necessarily make someone act or think more in line with how the main character does.
We can ask people to act a certain way within society, but once we start demonizing urges people may have and not act on, and fiction that appeals to those people, I think we've gone too far.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see this kind of sentiment at the top. I also like the posts you linked a lot. I used to like these kinds of bitter sysadmin revenge fantasies, but I no longer really get the appeal; they seem to exemplify a kind of "punching down or sideways because you can't punch up" behavior that I see IRL (outside IT) too often to find it funny.
This sounds almost like "first they kill monsters in that new 'Doom' thing on a computer and then they go out and shoot people on the street!"
There's a difference between humorous escapist fantasy and the reality, and most adults are capable of recognizing it. We can watch "John Wick" without starting to shoot people, and we can read BOFH without being forced to act it out too. And as all escapist fantasy, there's an element of reality and its frustrations baked into it - that's why it works - but everybody knows it's not the reality itself.
I can't stop reading them because they so accurately depict the attitude and MO of a few real life BOFH that I used to work with. These guys, one in particular, would do anything in his power to torture people while averting any blame due to his technical skills. And then openly laugh and make fun of them with the other sysadmins...who all pretty much allowed him to get away with it all or even encouraged it. These stories do not look like fiction to me in any way.
Seconding this. I didn't manage to get through one before it seemed absurd, beyond unethical and unprofessional, and petty. Reminded me of Comic Book Guy: so smart but no one can stand their misanthropy.
The unfunny, mean frame around hacking things in unexpected ways probably seemed like a decent literary device, but turned out not to be.
But by then the series was a series, and like a bad Sunday-paper comic strip back when, just kept going. This seems to be a failure mode peculiar to syndication.
I do sometimes wonder how much of the attitude and behavior of many IT people I've met might ultimately be sourced from the BOfH, taken to heart by people who didn't really get the joke. Much like how modern game 'critic' culture seems to have been derived from the AVGN.
Most people working in IT when these things came about were burned very hard by being a "cost centre", they were user facing and also had to be deeply technical.
It's difficult to be under appreciated, held to high standards for output but also be user facing (because support requires, more than anything else, patience) and maintain a positive demeanour, most people specialised into roles like "Helpdesk" but those always felt very entry level and were probably very unfulfilling.
Even if you had a Helpdesk: it probably felt that the implementor was "very far removed" from the user, which makes things even more annoying when something breaks down and you want things to move quickly.
BOFH is almost certainly a fantasy that follows the perception of an operations person. Certainly I believe that more than I believe it's a work of fiction that came from nowhere that people identified with and imitated.
> roles like "Helpdesk" but those always felt very entry level and were probably very unfulfilling.
I used to think that also until I worked with some career helpdesk operators that were well suited to the position for their excellent social aptitude and reasonably well compensated for their skills and excellent tact. This is not confined to Tier I, as the most successful in Tier II will also have this gift of being personable that is less common or with less opportunity to express it in Tier III, but it appears again in Tier IV. It is ironic, but generally a less competent but extremely personable operator will be more successful than a competent and efficient operator with no social skills.
Nah, it's always been considered a revenge fantasy.
IRL BOFHs were BOFHs before it came around, they just didn't have a label. The omnipotence mania is built in the very concept of "administrator" or "root", and because this obviously doesn't translate directly in the real world for IT admins, there is always a friction, a source of frustration, for people in those jobs.
The real outcome of BOFH was to sensitize some bosses to the problems such personalities can produce, a concept that made it all the way to Sarbanes-Oxley. And despite that, the likes of Terry Childs [0] are still very much around.
I remember greatly enjoying BOFH when I was young, in the same way it’s fun to watch a movie with a deeply flawed character behaving poorly.
Then I worked at a company where the IT person modeled their personality on BOFH and it was, unsurprisingly, a miserable experience for everyone. Strangely, they got a free pass for the gruff behavior because there was this idea that “that’s just how IT people are”. Fortunately, that’s not the norm or even acceptable at any sane workplace and I went on to work with a lot of great and professional IT people since then.
But I’ve often wondered how much the BOFH fictions influenced some people who missed the point.
Back in the day, BOFH was not on the Register. I thought it was very topical and I suggested to Mike Magee that they talk to each other - the rest is history.
LOL, a downvote for the literal absolute truth, Check with Mike and Simon if you have any doubts...
Yes, I found it funny, and the number of fatalities was extraordinary (all for valid reasons...). He should re-invigorate it with hacker stuff and ransomware demands for 2P or I trash your server - see the coin slot on your server - insert 2P - the ideas are endless to expose fools who use admin as pw etc..
BOFH is meant to blow off steam for the lowly enlisted people of tech. I think the negative comments in this thread really shines a spotlight on the chasm dividing IT people on HN. A lot of the ivory tower of IT hangs out here unaware its hell for the majority of folks working IT. Spend a few minutes on /r/sysadmin if you need a refresher on what it's really like to start out in this business working at an ordinary company.
And this is nothing against the ivory tower or the valley. All I'm saying is it's a problem when you can't tell that you're there because of the echo chamber you're in. To most orgs IT is an expense that must be minimized at all costs and that translates to treating IT people as dirt. Shops that export technology as their business are the inverse of this.
I've been following BOFH for decades (It long predates 1999), since he was a student in New Zealand.
It is not PC (but also not deliberately offensive -it's a revenge fantasy; not a manifesto).
As time has gone on, Simon (the BOFH), has gotten deadlier. He started off, nuking students' term papers, and has since graduated to routine first-degree, premeditated murder.
It's entertainment. Not my favorite go-to, but I enjoy it.
"It's backup day today so I'm pissed off. Being the BOFH, however, does have it's advantages. I reassign null to be the tape device - it's so much more economical on my time as I don't have to keep getting up to change tapes every 5 minutes. And it speeds up backups too, so it can't be all bad can it? Of course not."
For our german audience here at HN, there's also a (german) version called Bastard Assistant from Hell (BAfH) [1] which I can highly recommend if you liked the original stories as well
The original and the best. After moving to The Reg it stretched from grmpy sysadmin deciding to delete peoples files to a machivellian character who murders people on a regular basis
It's oscillated a few times; some of the early ones are quite murder-y, and the Reg version has sometimes been a bit more normal (though I think he's in a murder-y phase at the moment).
I have a couple of coworkers that use this term with pride, e.g. part of their nickname, email signatures, etc...
Why would they do that? To me it reads as unwelcoming or passive aggressive, doesn't it?
BOFH represents an angry, cathartic, antiheroic response to the social problems of the IT world. Anyone acting that way in the real world deserves the prison sentence that would immediately follow... just as anyone who behaved like an action movie star in the real world would go to prison for assault and murder.
The primary desired response is quiet sympathy and camaraderie, if appropriate.
Why would I want to be welcoming or positive? While I'm not exactly aggressive person, I'm more like neutral person and I would never want to fake welcomeness or something like that. If someone will approach me with question from documentation, I'll never hesitate to answer RTFM and move on.
May be that's US thing that everyone must smile and be kind. I was not taught like that, I don't expect that from others and I'll not fake good mood being in a bad mood myself.
Why does everyone feel entitled to be welcomed in all situations since around 2015? The people demanding to be welcomed have more power now than the people who actually created something. This is deeply wrong.
Also, the question of welcoming/unwelcoming is entirely orthogonal to what the BOFH is about.
I never understood - what does 'operator' mean in this context. I've never encountered anyone with the job title 'operator'. Does it mean 'user'? But that doesn't fit with the content because the Bastard Operator doesn't like users. Does it mean 'admin'? But then why a different word?
"A computer operator is the person responsible for monitoring and controlling computer systems especially mainframe computer systems in a company or organization."
It's kind of archaic, now, but back in the day you used to have a computer that filled a whole room and there would be an operator in charge of compiling and running jobs, returning (printed) output, managing user accounts, resources, backups.
Sort of analogous to a system administrator on multiple smaller computers used as servers, or the IT guy on personal computers used for work, but much more direct, in that they would actually be the one who operated the computer. Users submitted typed programs that would be input into punchcards and run as a batch, or run on a scheduled basis.
When I was an undergrad student in 2010 I worked part time as a contractor for the state of NY and my official title was “computer operator”. For the most my job was IT support
Computer operators were not very technical--just trained on the various tasks listed. It was often a low wage job. Not like a more familiar sysadmin of more recent years.
Systems Operator: Maintains and runs systems, often works from runbooks, or automated UI's; does not write code, works within the constraints set by Administrators. Level 2 Helpdesk.
Systems Administrators: Responsible for writing documentation, addressing the needs of monitoring. Usually the person writing runbooks and scripts, works closely with a Helpdesk and their needs, automates recurrent problems. Level 3 Helpdesk.
Systems Engineer: Responsible for architecture, understanding complex systems, working on new projects, making Systems Administrators lives easier. Working with Architects on upcoming projects, likely designed and built the logging solution, database migration systems, job control systems.
Systems Architect: Same as a systems engineer except focused on business needs instead of technical ones. Usually works on a higher level of abstraction, often works across many teams to gather needs.
This was a book that was "old" when I read it in 2007, so, obviously this no longer reflects reality (if it ever did).
The term would be akin to system administrator now; the sysop was the one who was in charge of the computer (you know, the one computer on a business or school campus that everyone shared via terminals). They would be in charge of monitoring the computer, making sure that users weren't doing anything they weren't supposed to and impacting other users, managing backup tapes, and handling the equivalent of "support tickets" (mostly via phone or paper in those days)
It means "computer operator": "a role in IT which oversees the running of computer systems, ensuring that the machines, and computers are running properly" [0] ― a rather interesting article to read even on its own.
You would write down the program you want to get executed or punch it on punch cards.
The only people who could actually operate the computer were... the operators. These people (mainly women) would transfer the program to the computer, execute it and then transfer the answer back to the requestor.
This survived into later because an admin on the server is was the only person who could actually operate the server. The rest can only within whatever rights the admin gave them, but for any important operation (like adding a user) you still needed the admin (operator) to take action.
* Putting paper on printers
* Taking paper off printers
* Decollating the paper that came off printers
* Putting tapes into tape drives
* Taking tapes out of tape drives
The slacking was
* Going to the pub before it closed on night shift
* Having sword fights with the plastic swords we used to cut paper
* Finding an unlocked office and using the phone to call party lines
The work highlights were:
* Going to a vault and back flanked by security guards to get the Queen's tape
* Printing bank statements of the rich and famous (I've seen Mick Jagger's bank account)
Besides 'computer' operator, there used to be 'I/O operator's (tapes) and 'print pool operator' (run printers).
Also, in my experience 'computer operators' weren't really 'sysadmins' they were more like automated job scheduling services. Follow the run book, run batch jobs, check for errors sort of thing
Source: I've held all 3 positions at one time or another.
When I first encountered BOFH, I recalled TV commercials on KTLA Channel for Control Data Institute in order to give me context on the "Operator" term.
You could train to be a computer programmer, operator, or technician. Seems like a standard term of art for the 1970s.
Operator as in System Operator or sysop- an archaic term for IT administrator from when the computer was a single “system”. Equivalent to root when used.
reminds me of a ctf (overthewire - vortex level 16) that uses bofh to crack 100 out of 128 letters of a hash...come to think of it now i have more clues for this one.
Oh , so just like any news site nowadays. Some (browser developer) people never learn. Or to put it another way: "Lusers, bless their little hearts, have simple minds. " [1]
In the late 70s I was new to using the teletype we shared in the office, and one day I had a job waiting for a tape to be mounted. An old hand asked what the problem was, "here, move over" he said "this should help".
He typed a message:
- why don't you .......s do some ....ing work for a ....ing change -
and walked away. I was left traumatised.
I later got a call from the ops manager saying that he and the operators were shocked by the language. I doubt it.
[-1] http://www.actsofgord.com/