@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

Yeah, but where do you "mark" things? It's not like there is some universal place to mark things. Every place that I have to mark things has be in Europe or LATAM, and I live in Texas, and that's all pretty obvious and public, but no recruiter I've ever seen uses any of those sources and just assumes places that I neither live in, nor or really from, nor consider going to.

LI has a location field you fill out in the profile, for example

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

Yeah, but most good people stop paying attention to them. I have hundreds, but not a single one can figure out what country I'm in or how to tell me about relevant jobs. The size of the pool doesn't do any of them any good, they can't identify skills, location, interest, etc.

In the SMB space, people actually struggle a lot to find recruiters that can handle them. Finding anyone recruiting outside of the key metros is actually quite hard.

Maybe, I'm not in SMB, and haven't been in over a decade, so I don't know. And the only companies I would go for are either very serious brands in the industry or startups that I have inside information about being potentially very successful. Also, I simply mark myself as belonging to a large metro area, even if I'm out in the suburbs and have no intention of commuting to the office every day. Been working from home for 99% of the time for the past 10 years, and I see no reason to change that

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

That's where doing a better job and pulling in a unique talent pool could be a huge boom.

I doubt there is such a thing as "unique" talent pool. Every pro who is worth anything will have hundreds of recruiters in his LI connections after a while, and they can all try to tap him for the same position at some point. Happens to me almost on a weekly basis here in Montreal, and used to happen every day when I lived in Israel. I usually just go with whoever contacted me first, if I'm interested at all

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

That's fine, but that's different than being swamped. That's not wanting to be exposed, which is a different problem.

That's the reason they don't go for public conversations. You end up on the defensive and as a salesman (and that's what they are in the end) you never want to be there.

I'm on a few technical channels on Telegram, and every time a recruiter pops in trying to hunt for channel-relevant profile people, they end up running away, because questions start pouring in, most of them as snarky as you can imagine.

A community on facebook I'm in, just had a guy trying to recruit someone for a very cool position, but was offering about 50% of what the job was worth. He made the mistake of actually mentioning the sum in public, and was immediately told this is half the expected price. Which immediately terminated a few PM conversations he had going, because people saw that, checked the salaries online and told him to go look for suckers elsewhere. He could have been caught in a 1:1 conversation, but the chances of that are much lower, and he might have even found a cheap guy agreeing to the wages. And that guys would have signed some non-competition agreement which would effectively bar him from the industry once he realised he was severely underpaid and wanted to leave.

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

Yes, but it's one to many. Not one to one. It's very different from the way you are using the car buying model.

The model is one-to-one-to-one where the ones are you, recruiter and employer. Repeated times candidates, but also times recruiters the employer contacted and positions the recruiter can offer you with various employers and... In the end - the recruiter wants to convince you to start the process and hopes you can make it through the interviews. The first part is much harder when he is bombarded with questions (and sarcasm, of course) by a bunch of potential candidates, instead of just reaching someone he targeted specifically.

In reality, it's many to many. A recruiter will have loads of jobs and loads of candidates. But that's like a car salesman.

And the candidate might have many recruiters getting him into interviews and the employer might be working with many recruiters. It's a free market

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

How is answering something once instead of a thousand times "swamped"? Reducing overhead is part of the goal.

Because they don't want to answer such questions in public. This is exactly the used car case - whatever you agree on is what matters and the recruiter is there to pretty much get the most out of you. How often have you actually heard the recruiter say "they are paying X dollars" on the get-go?

@scottalanmiller said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

Recruiters are not like car salesmen in this aspect. The IT people are like the cars, the clients are like the car buyers. You absolutely want the cars all in one spot, not one on one.

Nope, because the recruiter is selling you the position as much as he's selling you to the employer. If you're not interested, he loses as much as when the employer is not interested

@DustinB3403 said in Why Do Recruiters Never Get Involved in Forums Like This:

A recruiting company could post their positions on the forum.

And get swamped by people replying with questions they'd have to answer publically. Like "what are you guys paying?"

A recruiter wants to get a 1:1 with a candidate, much like a used car salesman. Facing a forum of people with all the communications public is detrimental to his job, much like if you go into a used car dealership with 20 friends backing you up, all the salespeople's tricks go down the drain.

@EddieJennings it only took 'em 20 years

Waiting for a delayed flight at SFO

@wirestyle22 plenty of those on 'dem interwebz

I do all my monitoring with prometheus and grafana. Stats are saved, everything looks nice, and alerts are fully customizable. Can't complain

@jmoore bringing linux out of sleep or suspend is also much faster

virtio gpu is, afaik, an extension of QXL to enable 3D graphics. I've seen it work in Linux VMs.

QXL, in turn, has been around for a decade now and works great for anything 2D (I've been watching HD movies and running skype videochats while live migrating the desktop VM for example).

Not sure what is going on with windows support, but I'm sure you can get a straight answer if you ask on the spice-space.org mailing list

I find spiceworks extremely toxic, so I stopped going there.

@scottalanmiller this was actually always the case. MS ran into boot time problems a while ago, and their solution was to get into the UI as quickly as possible, while continuing to load everything in the background. This is why Windows is damn slow after you boot and slowly picks up speed as everything REALLY loads.

The proper timing would be from getting out of POST and to being able to actually use the desktop, not to seeing the desktop.

I remember several benchmarks being published some 10-15 years ago, showing several additional minutes of severe slowness even when your basic desktop seemed to be loaded.

TLDR: this is an illusion or a dirty hack, depending on your preference in terminology

@Dashrender said in What is Virtualization?:

Sure you do - along with the complexities that come with managing and maintaining your solution. But yep, you get to mix and match.

There's always a trade-off But practice shows the OSS way is more effective in the long run - even MS are moving towards that model, and so do all the tech giants who aren't there yet.

@Dashrender said in What is Virtualization?:

People coming from Windows (definitely talking about myself here) aren't used to this type of separation in general. They/We are more accustomed to the packages style. When we talk about AD, we don't simply talk about the authentication part, we mean all of it - authentication/Group Polices, etc. So breaking these things down - explaining, over and over and over again that ZFS is a package, and XFS is a single item is critical to get those people on the same page.

Thanks @dyasny for that post - it was very helpful.

I totally understand that, been an MCSE before I got into Linux after all. This is a double edged sword - with things like AD, you get a very good integration of the entire stack, true. But the downside is that the entire stack belongs to MS, no parts are interchangeable and you are a hostage in a vendor lock. If MS decide not to develop a feature or not to move in a certain direction, you have to adjust. With the OSS unixway kind of software, you always have options of various degrees of integration quality.

@scottalanmiller said in What is Virtualization?:

This is a really big deal. To make a comparison, it is like how people would compare ZFS (filesystem, logical volume manager, RAID lumped into one) to XFS (just a filesystem.) Then say "can XFS do.... x, y, or z feature that isn't part of the ZFS filesystem" and it made ZFS look good simply because "XFS can't do that." But the XFS ecosystem did it very well, it just wasn't XFS itself doing whatever feature they were asking.

The unix way is to have one product doing one function and doing it well. This is a good and a bad thing really, but it definitely allows for faster development