Sigh

Define "experience". I've been in IT for over a decade. I've used Linux on countless occasions. I've deployed Linux servers and clients left, right and centre. Hell, I've programmed on Linux and created things that run all manner of systems.

But the same could be said of a lot of other people, who've done less than me. There's a big difference between slapping in a Linux box from an Ubuntu CD as a basic computer, not touching it to configure it, and deploying a properly managed Linux roll-out, even if it's only for a few select machines. There's a big difference between sticking in a pre-fab Linux server and sitting down and building one from software components.

I have a Linux server in front of me now, another running the website for my workplace, and 50 client machines on Linux upstairs - not to mention what's lying around in terms of kiosks, touchscreens, etc. that do their job nor even things like embedded Linux clients that we use for certain purposes.

The server, though, runs everything from fax-to-email services, Internet load balancing and fail-over, SMS gateway (with automated integration to do things like open firewalls and even cut the power to other devices through USB relay boards), file server, backup staging server (backup to that, it backs up to a remote overnight), web filter, email server, support ticket server, instant messaging server, VPN server, it provides any number of facilities that staff use every day - hell, it even interrogates remote Firebird databases on embedded devices in our access control software to draw up In/Out boards on the intranet that it serves, and print out lists of people in the case of a fire.

Now if/when I go, and someone has to come in and manage that, a guy who says "Linux skills" on their CV might not be anywhere close to being able to actually manage it, replicate it or replace it - even with all the documentation in the world. Hell, the version of Hylafax I use has my own custom patches in it and replacing it with a stock version stops a lot of things that people expect to "just work" from working. The kernel is patched to provide proper dropped-connection detection for the external lines and to kick them back into action and modify routing tables as necessary. I know people who, in trying to replicate that functionality, could spend £10,000 on 20 different devices to do the same things.

My problem with this is that it's like saying "Windows skills are in big demand". All that you'd get it you put "Windows" into a job title / description is a thousand applications from school-leavers who "know Windows". But if you just advertise the job title, that should be enough. If I was to wander into a old-school Unix shop tomorrow, I don't claim to know damn all about it, but if it was my current job that just so happened to be using Unix instead of Windows/Mac/Linux, then I would be expected to pick it up. The skills are transferable and the knowledge is easily available. Somehow singling out Linux as "some magical thing" that earns more money, I think is a silly thing to do. Anyone worth their salt should have played with all current operating systems in one form or another, even if in only quite minor ways.

If you can't find people with Linux skills, you're not even trying to hire the right sort of people anyway. You're hiring people who've gone through an MCSE and think they know everything there is to know about computers, servers, the Internet and everything else. Of course they are cheaper, but if you'd hired properly in the first place, you could throw just about anything in front of the right person and you wouldn't even need to pay them to train on the new OS, programming language or whatever else.

The number of people with half-assed Linux "skills" is less than those with half-assed Windows "skills", of course. That goes without saying. But the problem is that if you are honestly hiring someone with a job title of, say, "Linux IT Manager", or "Linux Server Deployment Specialist" or whatever else you want, then it just shows that your existing staff aren't competent or capable of learning something new. In the same way, I'm expected to "just know" Server 2012 and Office 2013 without any formal training, from testing through deployment to end-user support. Because I was hired properly, it's not a hindrance. But sod having to advertise for a "Server 2012 IT Technician" or whatever.

It costs more, because you're not hiring button-clickers. You're hiring people who have a broad knowledge that covers more than the job initially requires. And separating them from the "I once installed Ubuntu" crowd is kind of what the whole recruitment process is about, whatever the OS.

From a fanboi to another

Having been accused of being a fanboi countless times here among these hallowed pages I am sure my penguin compatriots and I will be quietly smirking and rolling in the dosh soon.

But seriously, Linux is a natural successor to Unix, which was seen as a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system well-suited for small to medium organisations who could not justify or afford the cost of a mainframe. Having cut my teeth and made a living on it, I am glad to see its return in its present Linux incarnation. As for the dosh - well, I'll leave that to the current generation. I'm quite happy to spend the last phase of my working life in quieter waters accumulating my pension paid for by Windows.

However, agencies please take note - I shall be available for Linux and Unix consultancy services...!