Linux skills are hard to find
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks that's just how general bad IT hiring works. Not unique to Linux.
I'd like to know where the non bad IT hiring is. I'm not in the league you were mention the other day, So being hunted is not a problem I deal with. This leaves me to looking through other more normal/traditional avenues. Like John, all the listings I see are very similar to his - requiring degrees, long work history, etc.
Cold calling and networking helps too if you can market yourself. That's how I got my current job. Heck many large companies even list on their employment page to contact them if you have a unique or interesting idea for a job.
This is very true. For example, I was interesting in working for Ferrero (the Nutella and Kinder people) and so reached out to them directly. That's a tough one because I was interesting in their CIO role in Italy, but that's how you make contact, you reach out to them. Good shops aren't constantly hiring (at least not as a percentage) and their internal staff is always bringing people in because they are raving about how awesome it is to work there. Really good places, outside of some that are just massive like Microsoft or Facebook, just don't need to advertise as people are always submitting and getting in through back channels. Even in finance where they hire a huge percentage of the IT field, they often hire from word of mouth.
-
Even small places that have a good reputation and are good places to work tend not to advertise. I know that NTG basically never advertises positions. I'm sure that @Bundy-Associates is the same way. There are a few factors that make good shops rarely advertise:
- They hire much more slowly because people are not quitting all of the time. People tend to stay a long time or even until retirement.
- They have applications coming in without requesting them and need to work through those before looking for more.
- They have hiring supply chains that already exist that are more effective.
- They train internally so they may hire into one position and move people into others rather than hiring from the outside for each new tech or task.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
We have the opposite problem. Linux people who have been in multi-tenant environments are a dime a dozen. Windows people worth a damn have been hard to find.
I agree. Linux people who know large scale management are far, far more common than Windows ones. But you can normally leverage Linux people for Windows work in most cases.
No, because Linux people are assholes and bitch/whine/complain if they have to do anything related to Microsoft at all.
Take for example log reviews. Many of our Linux people cannot comprehend not using grep. Or even something as simple as disk cleanup. The C:\ drive is almost full, let's try nothing! Many don't even know what C:$Recyclin.Bin is, let alone empty it.
I can do lots of things in both types of environments, but that's because I'm old and have seen it all. I stick with Microsoft because its more lucrative, being that people expect if you know Windows then you know SQL, Sharepoint, Exchange, and XBox. Opens more doors for me.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@Dashrender said:
My question - why would you think that - was in regard to Jason's assumption that more people would like Linux - why would he think that?
Ah, they would like it because it is easier to learn, the knowledge lasts longer (Linux takes less retraining than Windows does as it changes more slowly)
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Oh, I know, SQL Server. That certainly changes every revision. Oh wait, the only thing introduced recently is AAG. Same ol' SQL Server Management Studio from 2003. Same old database stuff since 6.5. Everything else is under the hood enhancements.
Yeah, Windows is hard because it changes so much. To hell with the Start menu!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
My question - why would you think that - was in regard to Jason's assumption that more people would like Linux - why would he think that?
Ah, they would like it because it is easier to learn, the knowledge lasts longer (Linux takes less retraining than Windows does as it changes more slowly), it is more rewarding and less work and it pays far more. Better pay, less work, typically more rewarding, easier to do remotely.... what's not to love from a job and career perspective?
I give you all those points in job and career - but you need to get people onto Linux first. When I was growing up it was mainly DOS or Win 3.x, but the barrier to computer when I was growing up was still pretty high (costly). Clearly that's not the situation today, nor has it been since somewhere between 1998 and 2002.
Those who grew up (say ages 8-15) during those years were primarily exposed Windows or Mac OS. There's been a huge shift again, iPhones/pads, etc there is less need to learn how to use a computer and more treating it like an appliance. I'm really curious how things are going to look 15-30 years from now as today's kids grow up not needing to really learn how a computer works, instead they just use this appliance, kinda like using a TV. Of course there will be that small percentage, like there has always been, that will go into the field, but the lack of needing to learn how to use a computer for their job, instead just using an appliance - we could see a severe reduction in technical geared workers.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
I can do lots of things in both types of environments, but that's because I'm old and have seen it all. I stick with Microsoft because its more lucrative, being that people expect if you know Windows then you know SQL, Sharepoint, Exchange, and XBox. Opens more doors for me.
While this is bizzare, I've definitely it to be true - Just because you know Windows, well hell then you must know SQL, SP, etc.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Take for example log reviews. Many of our Linux people cannot comprehend not using grep. Or even something as simple as disk cleanup. The C:\ drive is almost full, let's try nothing! Many don't even know what C:$Recyclin.Bin is, let alone empty it.
Where are you finding these people? I've never found a Linux admin that can't do Windows. Complain that it is convoluted, slow and silly, of course. But I don't know any that don't support Windows on the side and do so, mostly, in their sleep.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
I can do lots of things in both types of environments, but that's because I'm old and have seen it all. I stick with Microsoft because its more lucrative, being that people expect if you know Windows then you know SQL, Sharepoint, Exchange, and XBox. Opens more doors for me.
Except Linux people get all of those expectations too, plus NGinx, NoSQL, MongoDB, MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Apache, Hadoop, HA, virtualization and pretty much anything you can imagine. Once you know Linux, people just expect that that means "everything", including all of the Windows platform stuff.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Windows 98 wasn't even the same OS family! Things have changed a LOT. To the point that people having learned how to manage in the old days are often useless today if they have not kept up. There is a reason that people hold on to XP or 2003 for decades... because the changes are so big to be crippling.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Windows 98 wasn't even the same OS family! Things have changed a LOT. To the point that people having learned how to manage in the old days are often useless today if they have not kept up. There is a reason that people hold on to XP or 2003 for decades... because the changes are so big to be crippling.
Please provide a few of those changes.
-
@Dashrender said:
I give you all those points in job and career - but you need to get people onto Linux first. When I was growing up it was mainly DOS or Win 3.x, but the barrier to computer when I was growing up was still pretty high (costly).
Granted, and we did. Linux is the mostly broadly used OS. So that problem is solved.
Actually, in the DOS and DOS/Windows era, UNIX dominated just like today. Only it was UNIX not Linux. DOS was never a leader. It was important for end user computing, but that was never a focus of IT nor the dominant thing deployed. If you are looking at IT from a home user perspective, then Commodore 64 was the big player. If you are looking from a business, then UNIX, mainframes and VMS were the big ones in the DOS era.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Windows 98 wasn't even the same OS family! Things have changed a LOT. To the point that people having learned how to manage in the old days are often useless today if they have not kept up. There is a reason that people hold on to XP or 2003 for decades... because the changes are so big to be crippling.
Please provide a few of those changes.
New language at the core of management, moving from GUI to CLI, totally new operating system with nothing the same but a little of the look and feel, the registry, Active Directory, totally new GUI, all configuration tools having moved.... in fact, name anything that hasn't changed? Since DOS and Windows NT aren't related OSes, other than in their branding, what do you see as having carried through?
-
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
I can do lots of things in both types of environments, but that's because I'm old and have seen it all. I stick with Microsoft because its more lucrative, being that people expect if you know Windows then you know SQL, Sharepoint, Exchange, and XBox. Opens more doors for me.
While this is bizzare, I've definitely it to be true - Just because you know Windows, well hell then you must know SQL, SP, etc.
If you think that you see this in the Windows space, at least those are all products from the same vendor for the same OS. It's knowing the "Microsoft ecosystem." Which is, of course, still a rediculous thing to assume that someone knows. But on Linux we are often expected to just "know" three or four or five different operating systems, all of their tools, and a massive array of totally random third party applications that run on them. One database that we are just expected to know? Try ten. One web server, try three. One web application, try five. And none are predictable or from the vendor(s) in question.
-
This thread is interesting to me simply because I am attempting to solidify my knowledge of both Windows and Linux to a sysadmin level. I care, so assume that my standards are pretty high as in I'm not really ever going to be finished. I'd like to give my opinion about Linux but the reality is a lot of my opinions on it are based on what other people have said like @scottalanmiller or @JaredBusch so I'd rather not regurgitate information if I can help it. I'm studying to attain a higher level. It's not easy to become the authority on something. I wonder if people run into the same issues that I do where it's hard to find the best/most accurate information regarding all of these things.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Linux skills are hard to find:
I wonder if people run into the same issues that I do where it's hard to find the best/most accurate information regarding all of these things.
What do you mean? It is generally very easy to find accurate information for Linux and Windows. Understanding how to apply that information is a different thing all together though.
-
@coliver said:
@wirestyle22 said in Linux skills are hard to find:
I wonder if people run into the same issues that I do where it's hard to find the best/most accurate information regarding all of these things.
What do you mean? It is generally very easy to find accurate information for Linux and Windows. Understanding how to apply that information is a different thing all together though.
I mean in regards to nuances. I ran into this specific error code. I attempt to find an answer but it's a generic error code. Now you're subjected to other people's opinions. Look at ML vs. SW. Would I know the difference between a good opinion and a bad one at this point? Probably not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Windows 98 wasn't even the same OS family! Things have changed a LOT. To the point that people having learned how to manage in the old days are often useless today if they have not kept up. There is a reason that people hold on to XP or 2003 for decades... because the changes are so big to be crippling.
Please provide a few of those changes.
New language at the core of management, moving from GUI to CLI, totally new operating system with nothing the same but a little of the look and feel, the registry, Active Directory, totally new GUI, all configuration tools having moved.... in fact, name anything that hasn't changed? Since DOS and Windows NT aren't related OSes, other than in their branding, what do you see as having carried through?
OK Powershell I'll give you - I don't recall when it came out though, was it Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? A totally new OS? The changes from XP to Win7 were pretty minor. As for XP to Win 10 - sure there are many more tool changes, but I'd say less than half actually changed. But if you were a PS user before, I don't think that changed all that much other than expanding on what was there before.
But we're talking about a desktop OS here compared to a server OS. We haven't seen Windows Server 2016 much yet. Sure there are GUI changes - but if I'm going for that awesome admin position you like.. that should barely matter because I should be living in PS - and so you're telling me that PS has changed drastically?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@coliver said:
@wirestyle22 said in Linux skills are hard to find:
I wonder if people run into the same issues that I do where it's hard to find the best/most accurate information regarding all of these things.
What do you mean? It is generally very easy to find accurate information for Linux and Windows. Understanding how to apply that information is a different thing all together though.
I mean in regards to nuances. I ran into this specific error code. I attempt to find an answer but it's a generic error code. Now you're subjected to other people's opinions. Look at ML vs. SW. Would I know the difference between a good opinion and a bad one at this point? Probably not.
Well if you have a generic error code, you are only going to deal with opinion. You need to move on to more troubleshooting to determine the actual problem.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
Yeah, Windows is so fast on how it does things. Never mind the same driver method has been used since Windows 98. Or that the same command line utilities still work from NT 3.51. Or that Explorer hasn't changed since NT 4.0.
Windows 98 wasn't even the same OS family! Things have changed a LOT. To the point that people having learned how to manage in the old days are often useless today if they have not kept up. There is a reason that people hold on to XP or 2003 for decades... because the changes are so big to be crippling.
Please provide a few of those changes.
New language at the core of management, moving from GUI to CLI, totally new operating system with nothing the same but a little of the look and feel, the registry, Active Directory, totally new GUI, all configuration tools having moved.... in fact, name anything that hasn't changed? Since DOS and Windows NT aren't related OSes, other than in their branding, what do you see as having carried through?
OK Powershell I'll give you - I don't recall when it came out though, was it Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? A totally new OS? The changes from XP to Win7 were pretty minor. As for XP to Win 10 - sure there are many more tool changes, but I'd say less than half actually changed. But if you were a PS user before, I don't think that changed all that much other than expanding on what was there before.
But we're talking about a desktop OS here compared to a server OS. We haven't seen Windows Server 2016 much yet. Sure there are GUI changes - but if I'm going for that awesome admin position you like.. that should barely matter because I should be living in PS - and so you're telling me that PS has changed drastically?
Powershell has changed drastically. Every version is different then the previous one. The one thing that seems to remain the same is the awful Verb-Noun commands. Don't get me wrong, the changes are for the better, but they are still fairly dramatic changes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@Dashrender said in Linux skills are hard to find:
@PSX_Defector said:
I can do lots of things in both types of environments, but that's because I'm old and have seen it all. I stick with Microsoft because its more lucrative, being that people expect if you know Windows then you know SQL, Sharepoint, Exchange, and XBox. Opens more doors for me.
While this is bizzare, I've definitely it to be true - Just because you know Windows, well hell then you must know SQL, SP, etc.
If you think that you see this in the Windows space, at least those are all products from the same vendor for the same OS. It's knowing the "Microsoft ecosystem." Which is, of course, still a rediculous thing to assume that someone knows. But on Linux we are often expected to just "know" three or four or five different operating systems, all of their tools, and a massive array of totally random third party applications that run on them. One database that we are just expected to know? Try ten. One web server, try three. One web application, try five. And none are predictable or from the vendor(s) in question.
The problem here is that the masses (and I'm talking about non IT management here) don't understand the difference between Linux distros. Goodness knows I didn't until you explained it a few months ago. If I recall correctly - The difference between distros is like the difference between Windows and Mac - except that all Linux distros run the Linux Kernel.
I'm still not entirely sure what makes one Linux OS better than another. Why this one is good for storage, and this one is good for DBs and this one is good for PBXes, etc..
