Jobs...

[Evan Leibovitch]

Vlad wrote:

>> I think Linux skills are more in demand than they have ever been before.
>> IMHO there has been a shift from big iron *nix skills towards Linux.
>
>
> Quite true again. For the most part, I'm pretty "Enh." about that.
>
> First, because it opens up the market to a lot more people that know 
> Linux or BSD, but not UNIX. 

That's a much finer line than I think most people would draw, especially 
making a distinction between "BSD" and "Unix".

Now really -- if someone is skilled at BSD, is AIX or Solaris really 
that big a leap from the sysadmin POV? The tools are a little different 
but the underlying principles, and the troubleshooting skills necessary 
to excel at being a sysadmin on any of these platforms, are simply not 
that different.

Also consider that many of the components of modern Unix are lifted from 
the BSD and open source world. Take the BSD out of Unix and you lose 
even 'vi'.

The main sysadmin differences would be in kernel-specific issues such as 
hardware support, yet now -- especially give the maturity of commercial 
Unix -- the troubleshooting of hardware rarely traces down to a driver 
problem.

> This has a tendency to lower the pay brackets, as there's so many C.S. 
> students with Linux knowledge  and a degree, that are willing to work 
> themselves to death for 40k a  year.

And _here_ we find the crux of the problem, not from the difference 
between Unix and Linux but rather simple supply-side economics. The 
growth of Linux and BSD have made the Unix world far less elitist than 
it used to be (or wants to be), and the old guard -- who may arguably 
been overpaid because of the scarcity of good Unix admins -- are feeling 
the change.

The fact is that in society there are a lot of people in every field who 
are willing to work themselves to death for 40K. Arguably the Unix world 
has been shielded from such realities because of its inaccessibility 
from most of the IT world. Until the commercial viability of Linux of 
just the last few years, IT users were torn with a choice of crap (and 
relatively cheap) systems software on commodity hardware, or good 
expensive systems software on overpriced RISCs and mainframe boxes -- or 
SCO.

Was Windows NT ever as good as the worst Unix of its day? Nowhere near. 
But it was Good Enough for many in IT, and Microsoft was able to take 
full advantage of the feuding between Unix vendors that prevented any 
kind of alternative standard. They were extremely successful at 
advancing Wintel versus Unix/RISC. It wasn't as good but it was Good Enough.

Now folks have the relatively new option of inexpensive good-quality 
software on commodity hardware, leading to the growth of Linux despite 
the opposition of every proprietary software vendor and VAR out there 
(which is most of them). This accomplishment cannot be overstated.

But along with this success has come along with the staggering loss of 
elitism of the Unix world. The best example of this has been the 
complete inability of Usenix and SAGE to appeal to Linux admins, despite 
the best efforts of Jon Maddog Hall who is on the Usenix board. Arguably 
Usenix should be experiencing its best growth ever, but its scorn for 
the "Linux hordes" has excluded it from relevance.

> Second, there are a fair amount of apps that I'd much rather  run on 
> UNIX, than on Linux.

The number of apps that run on Unix-but-not-Linux is shrinking daily. 
Given that Linux is already more popular than Unix in IT environments, 
vendors who haven't ported their Unix apps to Linux are just dumb and/or 
have other agendas (such as propping up certain Unix flavours).

> Just because something is cheap, or free, and it mostly  "works", 
> doesn't mean that it should be used.

I'm sorry, but that statement just reeks of elitism and has no relevance 
in today's world, and I'm not just talking IT. In every field there are 
elite products that purists love and the rich/enthusiasts can afford. 
Sometimes, but rarely, the elite product is the most cost-effective 
solution to a need. The rest of us generally choose products that by 
comparison are "cheap and mostly work", that dramatically outsells the 
elite stuff. Anyone who buys PC-brand food, takes generic drugs, flies 
US-based airlines, watches analog, broadcast TV, drinks tap water or 
drives a Suzuki knows that. Why should IT be any different?

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml