@JaredBusch said in Virtual appliances?:
@stacksofplates said in Virtual appliances?:
This day and age Id just prefer a container. They're so much easier to deploy and manage.
Only when done right, which is still not often, IMO.
That argument could be made for pretty much anything though. I think even on a single host it's easier to manage.
This day and age Id just prefer a container. They're so much easier to deploy and manage.
@DustinB3403 said in Resume:
Also bullet points should be concise, not full sentences. See the above example. Use the section descriptor to explain the bullet list if you must.
I disagree
Yes I also disagree.
@scottalanmiller said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
@stacksofplates said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
@JaredBusch said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
@coliver said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
It's built from RHEL sources but it's not a clone
Correct. And it is not trivial.
Its def not trivial.
https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8
That's why when there is a new major RHEL release it takes months to get the CentOS release.
Oracle gets it in fast. A lot of that delay is intentional.
You have a different definition of fast than I do. Oracle, a 40 billion dollar company who actually makes money off of the release took over 2 months to release 8.
CentOS who is a small subset of Red Hat who makes no money off of CentOS took 4 months.
No matter how you look at it, it's not trivial.
@JaredBusch said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
@coliver said in The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream:
It's built from RHEL sources but it's not a clone
Correct. And it is not trivial.
Its def not trivial.
https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8
That's why when there is a new major RHEL release it takes months to get the CentOS release.
@IRJ said in Caddy vs. Nginx:
@JaredBusch said in Caddy vs. Nginx:
You have to compile yourself if you want to use commercially.
This is not something I will ever want to use because of that.
Yeah that's kinda lame, but not a deal breaker. Nginx has to be compiled for more advanced use cases like WAF or certain HAProxy features.
It's a bit of a bitch, but once you script it. It isn't too bad to do upgrades going forward.
that doesn't seem to be a limitation anymore. I didn't see it on their documentation.
Also I didn't realize Arden Labs made this. That's pretty cool.
If you begin the line with a space, it won't track in your history. I believe Fedora does this by default if I remember correctly.
@marcinozga said in Caddy vs. Nginx:
Caddy is really nice, and usually my choice for reverse proxy, except docker deployments. Here Traefik shines, you just can't beat auto discovery and configuration.
The file provider for Traefik makes even non container deployments easy.
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
For reference, a hedge fund LOSING a non-compete is so uncommon, that it makes the news. Nothing that makes the news like this, involving two employees, is ever a "guaranteed win". This is an "unlikely win that astounded people."
https://www.pionline.com/courts/bridgewater-loses-case-against-former-employees
This is not an apples to apples comparison. Those two guys left and started their own competing hedge fund. And they took one of Bridgewater's clients.
This is completely different.
Not really, it's slightly different, but it was still two people who weren't competing and didn't do anything wrong and they were sued anyway, and information was falsified. The part that matters (that they had a non-applicable non-compete that was enforced anyway) was the same.
I had no way to take their clients, because I wasn't going into sovereign trading, and therefore was a different industry, prop rather than sovereign, but their claims were the same - nearly identical. So the case I was having to deal with was essentially this one exactly. And I wasn't starting my own firm exactly, but there were startup similarities.
I'm sorry, what? So you're saying that two employees who leave and start a competing hedge fund, possibly take a client, bridgewater having 9 months of discussions with them privately before even opening the arbitration process is only slightly different than a Sr Unix system administrator leaving the company?
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
For reference, a hedge fund LOSING a non-compete is so uncommon, that it makes the news. Nothing that makes the news like this, involving two employees, is ever a "guaranteed win". This is an "unlikely win that astounded people."
https://www.pionline.com/courts/bridgewater-loses-case-against-former-employees
This is not an apples to apples comparison. Those two guys left and started their own competing hedge fund. And they took one of Bridgewater's clients.
This is completely different.
@Pete-S said in Topics of Systems Administration:
$400K per year doesn't sound impossible to me. It's roughly the same as outsourcing it at $200 per hour full time.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not. I'm saying the only people I've seen making that ($500k+) are like L5/L6 at larger tech companies. Even companies like Snap (Snapchat) pay over that, but they're all developers and architects. Not straight SAs.
Highest I've interviewed for was around 260 at GitHub, but again it was a developer role and not anywhere near L5/6.
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
This is where you have to understand hedge funds. Mathematically it made perfect business sense. You are thinking of it from a "Scott's value" perspective, but that didn't matter to them at all. What mattered was that they'd become famous as a shitty place to work and couldn't hire new people, and everyone working there wanted to leave. If they let me leave (for a lot more money) they had two problems - one was that I'd been chosen for the outside role when several people higher than me in the company had been turned down which looked really bad for them internally; and second that it meant that their stories that they told that we were the highest paid place and that people couldn't get better work elsewhere would be broken. Keeping their staff afraid was worth billions and billions to them because if the IT team fled, they'd be out of business (finance runs on tech.) So MY value to them was meaningless and small, but the risk of me taking another job that paid better and treated me better was enormous - worth essentially any amount of money or risk to stop.
Likewise, someone that sat in the office directly next to me also took an outside job and the same thing happened to him about a month before. But he backed down and asked to stay so that he'd keep his paycheck. I, instead, fled to Europe and took a job that they couldn't touch (and then they settled the non-compete with a payout once they knew I would be able to fund the lawsuit.) But it was nothing to do with me, everyone was treated the same because threatening a few people scared everyone.
Is this bridgewater?
Maybe, definitely a CT based hedge fund (HF Row is in CT)
If it's them, anything I can find shows less than a billion in revenue?
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
This is where you have to understand hedge funds. Mathematically it made perfect business sense. You are thinking of it from a "Scott's value" perspective, but that didn't matter to them at all. What mattered was that they'd become famous as a shitty place to work and couldn't hire new people, and everyone working there wanted to leave. If they let me leave (for a lot more money) they had two problems - one was that I'd been chosen for the outside role when several people higher than me in the company had been turned down which looked really bad for them internally; and second that it meant that their stories that they told that we were the highest paid place and that people couldn't get better work elsewhere would be broken. Keeping their staff afraid was worth billions and billions to them because if the IT team fled, they'd be out of business (finance runs on tech.) So MY value to them was meaningless and small, but the risk of me taking another job that paid better and treated me better was enormous - worth essentially any amount of money or risk to stop.
Likewise, someone that sat in the office directly next to me also took an outside job and the same thing happened to him about a month before. But he backed down and asked to stay so that he'd keep his paycheck. I, instead, fled to Europe and took a job that they couldn't touch (and then they settled the non-compete with a payout once they knew I would be able to fund the lawsuit.) But it was nothing to do with me, everyone was treated the same because threatening a few people scared everyone.
Is this bridgewater?
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
Well, tell that to the courts. Because they do cross industry lines at times. As I was told by my attorney.... in court I'd win, but not until after a decade of fighting and we'd have to pay attorneys all that time and be unemployable. In the end, we were expected to win big, but my kids would grow up destitute while we fought the non-compete.
As my employer said at the time "You can't bag groceries in Oregon", that was their policy. No job, of any sort, anywhere in the country. Their policy was that they were a "US business" and "all US business" was a competitor. Clearly that doesn't work in court, but the number of people who had won against them were.... very few. Famously, two just did a few months ago. But it's taken that long.
So while you can say that non-competes have whatever limits, when you are talking companies of this size and resources, the courts are a bit fungible and what is legal or not becomes a question of who can afford to make it so.
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
One being you mentioned in this thread that you taught at Lockheed, and somewhere else said that you were only there for a week.
IBM and Lockheed had a joint teaching / training facility. I was at IBM teaching both IBM and Lockheed engineers in Endicott, NY. I taught at Lockheed, but for IBM.
Through a contractor. You specifically said in another place that "feel dirty for having stayed that long". That really makes it sound like you had a choice even though you were contracted through someone else for IBM teaching at Lockheed?
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
I mean I guess anything is possible, but why would you accept employment from somewhere that wouldn't allow you to work after that?
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You're the only person that keeps saying this.
Maybe I'm the only person you know with that kind of experience. That's the thing I was saying about the barrier, jobs in this range aren't advertised on job sites full of fluff and fake listings. They go through headhunters. If you filter for only low to mid range sites, of course you see low to mid range jobs.
See that's the thing. It's always you're the only person that has this experience. There's never any proof, and after working in the field and interviewing with companies of large size, it's never that way.
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You say you couldn't get a job after Citi because of a non compete,
I never said that. My non-compete was years after being at a bank.
What? Your non-compete issue was from CitiGroup correct? Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
It seems to change quite a bit to fit the scenario
You say things like this, but you never produce evidence. My history definitely doesn't change. Find this example you claim to know about. You can't, because it's consistent.
One being you mentioned in this thread that you taught at Lockheed, and somewhere else said that you were only there for a week. There's no way you were onboarded and teaching within a week. You also mentioned in another place the quality of engineers at Lockheed. There's no way you would have gained that knowledge from a weeks time.