Hey Linux head, want a job?

Hey Linux head, want a job?

Summary: The Linux Foundation has launched a jobs board.


The Linux Foundation has launched a jobs board.

(This particular Tux belongs to YoLinux.com, but he looks hungry so I invited him by.)

JobThread, a pay for performance job site through which the site is being run, says demand for Linux skills is up 80% in the last five years. Jobs can be posted either directly to Linux.com or through the JobThread network. The Linux.com site brags that it now has 11,000 registered members.

Given the 10% unemployment rate and the flack open source takes from proprietary programmers who say open source destroys jobs, the new job board will be more than welcome.

Keep those penguins working.

Topics: Software, CXO, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, IT Employment

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Salary?


    • Salaries

      Last I read Linux and UNIX admins are earning $80K-$85K per year. Windows admins are only earning $65K-$75K. I'm not a Linux admin myself, but I do know they can command a higher salary based on the simple economic principles of supply and demand. There are many more Windows guys than there are Linux or UNIX guys, which drives down the value of the Windows skills. Now an Exchange or a SharePoint guy can earn $80K-$90K, but those are more specialized skills.
      • Specialist skills ... like ummm ...

        ... clicking on different boxes rather than being a participant ...
    • $0/yr?

      I pull in a six figure salary.

      I am a software architect.

      I use 100% OSS and open standards on RedHat as a platform. Apache, PostGIS, C/C++/Python, SVG.

      I do not use Microsoft for anything.

      I kick ass.
      • Why do you think they call it MS$

        Because using Windows Products makes MORE $$$$ for less work/effort. Windows does have a vastly better tool set. SOooooooo.....
        Guess what we use?
        And ALL our programming staff make $100K+
        I'm the CEO, I know......
    • Your salary, apparently

      Zealotry doesn't pay all that well. Go back to your day job, if you have one.
      • RE: Hey Linux head, want a job?

        Given the 10% unemployment rate and the flack open source takes from proprietary programmers who say open source destroys jobs, the new job board will be more than welcome.<a href="http://www.edra41.org/"><font color="LightGrey"> a</font></a><a href="http://www.actioniseloquence.net/"><font color="LightGrey"> b</font></a><a href="http://www.funds-china.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> c</font></a><a href="http://www.isupportbridgewater.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> d</font></a><a href="http://www.cca64.org/"><font color="LightGrey"> e</font></a><a href="http://www.nexumbogazici.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> f</font></a><a href="http://www.h4nholdings.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> g</font></a><a href="http://www.dataseek.info/"><font color="LightGrey"> h</font></a><a href="http://www.pcloshwdb.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> i</font></a><a href="http://www.santaibisnes.com/"><font color="LightGrey"> j</font></a>
  • I wonder:

    I wonder if that 80% increase is more (far more) than the uptage and growth of Linux, I assume it is, and if so why would there be a massive increase in the requirement for support staff.

    So what does that say about the support requirements of GNU / Linux if there has been a huge explosion of maintenance and support people.

    This is consequence of the "linux becoming big and scary" according to Linus Torvalds?

    Would it not be better to make the software more stable and self supporting in the first place, and let the coders actually CODE, and fix the multi-thousand bugs BEFORE they release.

    Stop using users as perpetual beta testers.

    But that would be counter productive to FOSS's "business model", "give crap away for free, and charge like a bull to fix it".

    At least if you pay for software, you know the person who wrote it or the company who developed it, has to make a product people are willing to pay for.

    There is nothing wrong with paying for something you can use, I pay for my motherboard, CPU, RAM, H'ds and so on and I pay for one of the most important components of my system that is the interface between me, my applications and the computer.

    The OS, should NOT be seen or heard, it should just do what is necessary.

    I dont need people to help me configure, support or run my system, the designers try to reduce the support costs, so they try to make the product as good as possible before shipping.

    Personally, I would rather spend my hard earned money on a decent car, with a reliable motor, good tyres, and that goes well, over a car that is free, slow, substandard brakes, and designed with a business model, that the car manufacturer is to fix the car and that is how they make their money, on car repairs.

    Therefore, there is no incentive and a DISincentive to design and build a reliable, and easy to use car, as they make their money by fixing you're problems.

    The more problems they can give you, the more money they will make, the less problems you have the less money you make.

    This is not a successful business model, and that is why FOSS is not anywhere near where it should be in terms of quality and functionality.
    (plus, there is far too much politics, and "freedom fighter" elitism, extremeists, zealots, you name it. FOSS has it, in droves.
    • Kind of like...

      all the beta testing MS does on their paying customers. 95, 95a, 95b... 98, 98 SE, (we won't even discuss ME), XP, XP SP1, SP2, SP3, etc etc...

      I don't know where you (or anyone else) gets the idea that everything Linux has to be free (as in beer). I pay for my games, MS Office, Photoshop, Crossover, Cedega etc that run on my Linux boxes. As for free software that is available through the various repositories, Yes some is not up to par, others are quite good. If it does what it's supposed to do then I'm not going to argue about the fact that it's free. If I chose to write a decent program that is beneficial and asked no more than others be allowed to improve on it at their leisure, I have that right. Not everyone is about greed. Too bad some are so shortsighted and closed minded to get this.

      "The OS, should NOT be seen or heard, it should just do what is necessary."

      Exactly. Linux does its updates quietly. No reboots. No nagging about not being activated or crashing because an app that's baked into the OS crashes (nothing's "baked in"). Nice troll though.
      • RE: Kind of like...

        First of all, it would be helpful in these forums for people to distinguish between free and open source. You're right, they aren't the same thing.

        I hate trolls just like you. This is a Linux articles, and it sucks when Windows zealots come in here simply to bash Linux. As a Windows users, I see plenty of it go the other way (Linux Geek).

        I bet that Linux has major and minor releases just like Windows (a service pack=major release, auto updates=minor releases). I'm sure that many of the updates are responses to issues that end users have reported. The only reason Windows requires activation is to make sure Microsoft gets their money...something you seem to empathize with looking at your last post.

        I don't think the OS's are as different as everyone makes them out to be. Linux is free and if other Microsoft products that I need to use (because work requires it) could run on it I would probably use it.
        • Hmmmmm...

          I think you read my post wrong. I do NOT empathize activation at all. I think it's a draconian attempt of to call their users thieves. I was responding to a lame attempt to bash Linux and its efficacy.

          Linux does have major and minor releases, however once installed the updates are available so no need to install each and every release. With MS, they basically inflict the the OS onto the public and make them paying beta testers. Updates come through (how many drivers can we break with the next SP), then when a new release is put out, pay and reinstall.
          • Microsoft rebrands WGA nagware for Windows


            A nagware anti-piracy feature in Windows isn't going away, it's just getting a marketing makeover by Microsoft.
            Windows Genuine Advantage is being re-branded Windows Activation Technologies in Windows 7 and for updated versions of Windows Vista, the company has said.
            Built to detect and prevent installation of pirated or illegal copies of software, WGA failed genuine copies of Windows in large numbers for reasons never explained.
            One in five PCs running Windows XP have failed WGA tests since July 2005, but less than 0.5 per cent were reported to be running counterfeit software, according to figures from Microsoft released in January 2007. In 2006, Microsoft said that more than 20 per cent of WGA failures had been caused by something other than piracy of the keys used to activate the software.
            Along the way, alerts would pop up. If WGA found your copy of Windows to be not genuine, unauthorized or not validated, you got repeated warnings of: "This copy of Windows is not genuine".
            Despite these failures, Microsoft remains committed to the idea of WGA - hence the name change to break from the past as it introduces a brand new operating system.
            If you chose not to activate your copy of Windows 7 immediately, the company said Thursday, you're still going to get an annoying alert - but more in the vein of a peppy and irritating health and safety manager than a harsh headmaster ready with the cane. According to Microsoft, it has updated the Windows Vista SP1 reminder so: "When customers choose to activate later they will see a dialog box highlighting how activation helps them identify if their copy of Windows is genuine and be allowed to proceed immediately without a 15-second delay."
            WGA is not going away. Microsoft has also hinted at changes in the Windows Vista and Windows 7 management tools to cater for virtualized images and volume activation. Also, the company promised: "More can always be done - which is why you'll continue to see us invest in anti-piracy efforts such as Windows Activation Technologies over the long term."
            Ole Man
          • Which is one big reason why...

            I won't use windows. Many of my clients and even myself went through the WGA mess when their server went down. That was the finally drove me totally away from MS on my own machines. If I pay big money to use the software on my machine, I don't need or want to be called a thief just because they screwed up.
          • If you and your clients ...

            ... had installed their products correctly and supplied the correct product keys, then they wouldn't have been nagged or prevented from using the software as per the license they purchased.

            It's funny how the vast majority of people who legally use products from companies like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, Oracle, IBM, CA, SlySoft, HP, etc. do so without hassle nor licensing issues.

            It tends only to be the vocal minority who bleat on about how horribly they're being treated when their experience is in fact, being compromized by their ignorance or their willingness to flout the rules.

            In short: If you have bought a license for a product and you're installing it within the product's EULA then you should have few issues.

            If not, then you shouldn't be installing the product.
          • Point is...

            It shouldn't have happened in the first place. These were all legal installs and if I'm paying through the nose for their software I could care less if I'm in the "minority" or not, I have every right to complain.
          • @Dave32265: Point is ...

            ... if you were installing properly licensed software and had entered the product key correctly, then you wouldn't be getting "nagged".

            So the fact that you WERE getting nagged clearly indicates that you were either incorrectly entering your license key or you were not installing the product within the terms of the licenses you purchased.

            Which is it?
          • I'm talking about...

            when the WGA servers took a dive. Keys were entered correctly and they were legit installs.
          • @ Dave32265

            Its useless to respond to those whose sole purpose here is all too obviously to squelch free speech and criticism of Microsoft. Using Microsoft's own routine of accusing every customer they have of being a theif, regardless of the circumstance of any complaint they may have.

            Can you believe the blatent disregard of any semblance of the right to a small measure of personal freedom and dignity?
            Ole Man
          • @Ole Man ...

            So true. The "Well, it never happened to me so it couldn't possibly have happened to you" crowd seems a bit dense when it comes to reality. They live in their own little world, it seems. But I will continue to speak my opinions and when they spew their FUD, I will have my say whether they like it or not :-) If that means beating my head against the proverbial brick wall, so be it.
          • @Dave & OleMan: Just because we disagree ...

            ... does not in any way mean you're being oppressed. You're free to express your beliefs and opinions, but if those of us who read your statements and disagree are free to counter with our own argument. It's called debate.

            Specifically, this branch of the conversation centers around Deve's experience with WGA which failed to activate his copies of Windows once, briefly, some time ago. Since then, Dave, when you've entered a valid product key, have you seen products fail to register? I certainly haven't - except when working with customers who incorrectly registered multiple machines using the same product key which violates the terms of the EULA.

            Whether or not you agree with WGA is a separate matter, but the fact remains that if you install a given product according to the EULA that governs its use, then you should have few/no issues. If you do experience issues, chances are that you're violating the EULA.

            OleMan: You asked for vendors like Microsoft to treat you with some level of "dignity". They try to: When you install Windows, you have a grace period permitting you to freely evaluate the product prior to accepting the EULA and entering the product key. If you decicde you don't like the product, then you must remove said product from your machine.

            HOWEVER, just as when you're stopped by the police, you have to prove ownership of your vehicle and prove that you're adequately insured, when you want to accept free support from Microsoft, you have to prove that you've installed their product in accordance with their EULA.

            Software piracy is a very major issue here in the westernized world, let alone in developing countries. I feel software and hardware vendors are well within their rights to ask you to prove your ownership of their product before providing you with free patches/updates/improvement. Those that don't tend to be those who don't want to pay companies for their products.