Unix vs. Linux Career Prospects 46
TreeRat writes "Here is a CNN article covering the possible career prospects for IT professionals knowing Unix vs. Linux. It concludes (surprise surprise) that most Linux professionsals are using other forms of Unix at work as their primary OS, but that demand for Linux people should be much higher in the future. "
Strange conception of Unix (Score:1)
and Linux distributions. The basic commands are
pretty much the same. However, the names and
placement of the OS config files seems to vary
greatly from system to system.
However, after basics, there are considerable
additions by some systems. For example, in AIX,
the
contained in logical volumes, which are in turn
part of volume groups. The upshot of this is
that if you run out of space on the disk holding
/usr, you just extend that logical volume over
more disk space. Thus, you can enlarge
way you want, over as many parts of as many disks
as you want, without rebooting the system.
I'm sure some of the other unicies have similar
features. But many unicies, BSDs, and Linux don't
have this kind of flexibility, or the ton of
extra commands you have to learn to manipulate
such an environment.
So, you look for the features you need, and pick one. But the basic training is transferable anywhere.
How transferable is Linux knowledge to UNIX? (Score:1)
Symlinks are the key (Score:1)
I have compiled, built, and run a fair number of applications on (Debian, RedHat, and Open) Linux, Irix, SunOS, AIX, FreeBSD, and SCO... usually it is a bit of trouble but if the code is inherently portable, more a matter of some #ifdef's and symlinks. (Well, for SCO it's usually worse because they strive to provide broken development libraries... SCO is evil and must be destroyed.)
YMMV.
UNIX vs. Linux - False Dichotomy (Score:1)
Having run Linux for many years, and other commercial UNIXes for many years, I just don't see that there is a big enough difference between most of them to justify calling oneself a "Linux specialist" or a "Solaris specialist", or so on.
Anyone sufficiently familiar with 2-3 UNIXes and/or Linux should have no problem dealing with the rest. When Linux really starts cropping up in the job market in a big way, I think most UNIX admin/programmers will make the jump without even thinking about it.
Remember, similarity to UNIX is a design feature of Linux.
- Ken
Flourish -- aftermath (Score:1)
Is that goofing with NetBSD on VAX hardware or with VMS? Before you start messing with VMS, please consider the fact that there is an (unproven) relationship between the usage of VMS and the development of braintumors :) VMS is however one of the most stable OS-es out there and is still used today.
So, before you get yourself a nice uVAX II (or maybe even an 11/760 or 11/780) roomheater, take a look at VMS. It does run NetBSD though.
Mathijs
Software vs. Hardware (Score:1)
However, if I say that I am an AIX specialist, isn't the fact that I am familiar with AIX on IBM hardware implicit? (It doesn't run on any other, AFAIK) As is the case with Irix on SGI, HP-UX on HP, etc. Most commercial variants of Unix run only on one vendor's platform.
The point is not to tout oneself as merely a Foonix(TM) System Administrator, but as as a Unix Systems Administrator, specialising in Foonix. Note the singular/plural distinction, that one little "s" helps to confirm the idea that you are skilled in multiple variants. Listing other variants you have worked with is also a big help here.
Many sites run more than one variant of Unix. As such, a Foonix sysadmin would not be considered at some Foonix sites because he doesn't know Frobnix, and they've got one of those too. However, the Unix sysadmin who is a Foonix "specialist" would get a look-in even if he doesn't have any experience with Frobnix.
Of course, Linux and *BSD fall squarely into the same category as Solaris, as above. When mentioning Linux/*BSD experience, the platform is essential.
Open protocols allow for heterogeneous OS choice (Score:2)
I like Linux. But you try to run Linux on a serious 4 CPU Sun Enterprise 4000 server; Solaris and Irix have much better thread implementations than Linux. I, along with three others in our systems group, are responsible for hundreds of Linux boxen at work. We also run a bunch 'o Sun {sparc,x86} SunOS 4/Solaris 2, AIX 4 on RS/6000, IRIX 4/5/6 on everything from Indigo to Challenge-S hardware, and SCO on x86 hosts; plus we have NT all over the place on people's desks -- many prefer Linux over NT on their desks but require a Windows application to perform their job. That's life.
I don't want to give up this heterogeneous environment of differing hardware and operating systems. We spent most of the seventies and eighties figuring out that homogeneous protocols was the solution to heterogeneous platform incompatibilities; standardizing on only x86 throws into the toilet nearly 30 years of computer science research. Just as standardizing on only Windows or Linux would lose us yet another degree of freedom when trying to solve various problems with a computer. Let's face it, A world of homogeneous Linux and only Linux would get stale... When that happens I think it will be time to re-invent those old LMI/Symbolics LISP/OS systems on modern hardware, begin a re-implementation of PRIME/OS or VMS, or maybe even take a job selling shoes.
Linux is not the only free and open source operating system which ports to a wide variety of hardware; NetBSD also shares this bragging right in about the same proportions of differing architectures supported. And that is Free software's most important contribution, not just that Linux and NetBSD are free for the taking (sans the greater licensing freedom any commercial organization would enjoy with NetBSD), but that finally we have the choice of a portable and common cross architecture OS environment and development API; this is almost the realization of true CPU independence in software. That success is a computer science milestone, which while irrelevant to those who have standardized on only x86 as a platform, is historicaly significant relative to much of the early thinking about handling architecture diversity in the early days of computer science.
But this is not entirely a theoretical excursion. Embedded systems manufacturers and possibly even new workstation manufacturers (just look at the ARM based Netwinder) could exploit performance gains from new architectures as these OS's grow in popularity. Since they're designed to be ported, and since the APIs are common, application software should port easily. WOW! I get choice, and my software "just works," and someone makes a buck. Sounds like good 'ol capitalism exploiting the potential of a new market previously unavailable in the closed source proprietary era.
How transferable is Linux knowledge to UNIX? (Score:1)
Differentiation begins when you're buying different flavors for specific features, like LVM/JFS (which is slightly but annoyingly different among all platforms which have it), dynamic kernel configuration, clustering, etc. However, depending on how quickly you pick things up, you can usually hire consultants to do the heavy lifting and setup, and learn from them, and
keep the manuals (you bought the manuals, right?
Experience really only helps when TSHTF and you need to get back up FAST. Experience, particularly platform-specific experience, decreases your downtime because you know the tricks and oddities of the system. Of course, time is money, and companies are willing to pay for that level of experience, but I find that an org can save lots of $$$ if it takes the time to analyze its needs properly and get the quantity and quality it really needs. My current shop really doesn't need someone as good as me, though I bring some general tech analysis skills along with my AIX/Sol/OSF/HPUX/Linux/SunOS/IRIX/Cisco, so I can help out in a decision-making meeting on tech matters.
Personally, I prefer people who are flexible and comfortable with technology, and have the analytical and troubleshooting skills to deal with unforseen or new things, over any certs or experience numbers. Experience is definitely good, but without flexibility, you're toast in this business. And I don't mean flexibility in 'are you flexible enough to work 70 hour weeks', I mean 'we just got this new RAID in, but it didn't come with drivers. Can you wire it to our 7013-590?' If you approach that latter question like a tiger approaches an ibex, that's the kind of tech I would have no problem consulting with..
I find that my day-to-day tasks really only require the basic->intermediate skills of building httpd.conf, sendmail.cf, named.conf, and the oil changing tasks. Every once in awhile you get the platform-specific bits (like Integrix RAID conf thru a TTY, DiskSuite software RAID, LVM/JFS, print service, etc) but those really don't happen on a day2day basis unless you're in a large shop..
Linux will give you a strong foundation and familiarity with GNU tools. More importantly, however, it will also get you used to finding out your own answers and sharing your own tips and techniques. By the time you're ready to deal with the other (proprietary|advanced) features, you'll have developed the correct approach (tools, dejanews, altavista, ORA) to handle any problem.
Strange conception of Unix (Score:1)
Please enlighten me if I am wrong : are there major (read : fundamental) differences between, say, AIX and Solaris ? Irix and HP-UX ? (beside the obvious SysV vs BSD)
my thoughts exactly (Score:1)
The value of knowledge (Score:2)
For one, knowledge, especially computer-related, can never hurt you, but only help you. So what if you don't use it directly at work? It's the concepts, and the exercise of your mind, that's really important.
And since industry generally follows the bucks in any situation, I think linux specifically and Open Source in general will continue to become more viable contenders in the corporate IT realm.
(But of course, you already knew this
First year student.. (Score:1)
I'm finishing my first year in Comp Sci and I've been using Linux for over 3 years. I'm hoping there will still be Linux positions available when I get out.
Any chance of that happening?
Ben
False premise justifies any conclusion? (Score:2)
I dimly remember from my first logic course (before another one in symbolic logic) that "A false premise justifies any conclusion." What this means is that given a conditional statement which is true, if you then negate the premise, any conclusion could be true. For example, let us say that the statement, "If it rains tomorrow, I will go to the movies," is true. And if it doesn't rain tomorrow? I might or might not go. Either conclusion could be true or false. A false premise justifies any conclusion.
What has this to do with the article? The false premise is that Linux is a completely different OS than UNIX. This fundamental mistake undermines their whole article. If Linux is actually in most respects a form of UNIX, which I believe it is, then we can conclude with the article that Linux skills alone won't cut it, because they say that UNIX skills alone won't cut it. Or we can say with the article that Linux is a UNIX and UNIX isn't going away, therefore Linux skills are valuable. Or... well, you get the idea.
For reasons known perhaps only to the author, this article opposes Linux to UNIX in terms of skills and knowledge. This is a false dichotomy. Many of the pro-UNIX people quoted learned their way around Linux, and I should think that a good grasp of the fundamentals of any UNIX (or UNIX-like) OS is readily transferable to another UNIX OS. I do not go into a panic switching between Linux and IRIX, for example.
If one believes that Linux is UNIX for all practical purposes, this article is actually quite encouraging, because it tells us that UNIX skills are in demand, that Linux is a great way to learn networking, configuration, and sysadmin stuff, and that businesses are considering Linux as a low-cost, reliable UNIX OS.
The separtion of Unix/Linux? (Score:2)
Fortunately, some of the quotes pointed out that Linux can serve as a very good means of educating yourself about networking, security, etc... This should have been the main focus of the article. The fundamentals of Unix/Linux OS's are the same. Once you have mastered these fundamentals, moving from one flavor of Unix to another is relatively easy. I realize that becoming an omnipotent master of a particular flavor of Unix does take time and experience. However, having proficiency in another variation of Unix makes this transition quicker and more efficient. But only if you RTFM!:)
Some clueless HR managers probably don't realize the fundamental similarity between the various unices. "I'm sorry, we are looking for a person with experience with HP-UX, but you are only an expert on Linux." I take the attitude that if you could master one form of Unix, you could probably master another one.
SunOS vs Solaris (Score:2)
As another illustration of this, consider the case of SunOs vs. Solaris. SunOS4.X was primarily based on BSD4.3 while Solaris is based on SYS V.4. When companies made the switch from SunOS to Solaris, did they fire all their sysadmins and replace them with ppl more experienced with SYSV? Or did those old Sun sysadmin make the transition to this "new" OS?
On a similar note, what happened when SGI switched from NeWS to X/Motif? Or what happens everytime there is a major update to the "same" OS, like HP-UX9 to HP-UX10?
Oh, I get it! (Score:1)
Maybe you should put more smilicons® in your message next time.
--Ben
*** Linuxcare *** Linux skills in demand... (Score:1)
IDC forecasted Linux growth to be exponential by 25% over the next four years- which means there will be approximately a 600% increased need for Linux skills while the general IS talent pool shrinks by 40%. Get ready people- all that hacking is going to seriously pay off.
The real issue is the Open Source movement. Let's keep it moving forward, ethically, until Linux as an OS is as ubiquitous as operating system (on all platforms) as IP is as protocol.
And finally, a shameless plug: Linuxcare in San Francisco is HIRING AGGRESSIVELY. We seek the best and the brightest to work on Open Source projects including, but not limited to Linux and the GNU tools.
Arthur F. Tyde III, CEO
Linuxcare, Inc.
415 505-6135 tel, 415 831-9763 fax
mailto:aftyde@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare, At the Center of Linux
Yup. (Score:2)
The first actual admin work I did was on an IRIX 5.3 system (volunteer work is great, you gain experience without needing to already have it. If you're a Comp.Sci. or Engineering student and you've got a chance to volunteer for stuff in your field, GRAB IT - it's the difference between getting a cool job later, and being told 'Sorry, we're looking for someone with more experience.') Then my first paying admin work was on systems with IRIX and Solaris both - while there's a few major differences, most things you learn apply anywhere. Now of course, I'm working with Linux and IRIX, and I replaced the Solaris box here with another Linux install. (Sorry, but the latest solaris is too slllloooooowwwww on a Sparc1 system.
Once in a while, I even get to poke at my friend's *BSD box. (He installs the latest whatever is available. New Linux kernel? Change system over. New FreeBSD? Change... New NetBSD? Change... Eventually he'll find something that supports all of his freaky obscure hardware... And even then, most things are the same, it's just the minor differences to get used to. Just like talking to a bunch of people (in english) with really thick, and different accents, once you get past the fact that the guy over there emphasizes a different sylable than the guy over here, they're all still speaking the same language. Except for my old data structures prof. We're not sure what language he speaks.
How transferable is Linux knowledge to UNIX? (Score:2)
Well, it also depends on which distribution of Linux you're using - for example, if you want to learn about boot time configuration, Red Hat uses an arangement very similar to what IRIX uses, but Slackware (last time I checked was I while ago, so it may have changed) uses a completely different one. (I'm talking about the layout of the rc files here.) In a lot of things though, it will only be a little different. Shell commands are almost always the same. Some systems will want different parameters for a few commands - though that is mostly because of different versions of utilities. (For example, in current Linux distro's, 'ps' dosen't need a '-' in front of it's parameters, but IRIX yells at you if you don't include it. ps is an external utility, but I'm too lazy to replace it on the IRIX systems right now, so I just remember the '-'.) Some other things will be totally different, like file systems. Formatting drives in IRIX 4 was scary, it took me an hour just to interpret and calculate the parameters, where in Linux it's just a case of typing one command and remembering to tell it which drive to wipe. If you've got all the same versions of external utilities tho (like NFS, Perl, Tcl/Tk, (t)csh, etc...) then you should have only a few differences to worry about, since most of the environment will be the same. (Oh, and make sure you know where those utilities are. On Linux perl defaults to
A unix by any other name (Score:1)
I use Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux -- and never really understood just *why* Linux wasn't UNIX, per se.
But now I do.
If I could moderate this thread, I'd give ya a 4. heh.
How transferable is Linux knowledge to UNIX? (Score:1)
Essentially, how well does being a Linux sysadmin prepare you for being a solaris sysadmin, or an AIX sysadmin, etc?
Re: Linux Sucks (not!) (Score:1)
Anecdotal Evidence -- we're hiring! (Score:1)
This is also a blatant plug, and I hope nobody has a problem with that. Anyway, if you wouldn't mind a job in Seattle with stock options, hard work, competitive pay, and the ability to fiddle around with Linux, contact us at:
resumes@watchguard.com
--or, e-mail me at:
david.bonn@watchguard.com
If you've written network device drivers, programs that use lots of networking functions, boot loaders, or in general made significant modifications to a Linux kernel to make your life cooler I'd love to hear from you.
David Bonn
CTO
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc
P.S. If you don't want to work for us, or don't want to live in Seattle, I'm interested in (and better still, have a budget for) funding Linux software projects. So if you're working on something impossibly cool and need gear or grub or a place to crash, send me an e-mail.
A unix by any other name (Score:3)
Confusion over the word unix is commonplace. In this instance, the article splits unix systems into two categories: Unix and Linux, as if all unix systems besides Linux are somehow authentic or legitimate, while Linux is not.
What makes a unix system a unix system? Most of us already know the answer to this but probably have no desire to spell it out. If you know what a unix system is, inside and out, you know perfectly well that Linux is just one implementation of unix, as are Solaris, AIX, HPUX, etc.
The code base does not have to stem from the original tree to be considered a legitimate unix system, nor does it have to be proprietary. As Neal Stephenson points out, "Gnu is an acronym for Gnu's Not Unix, but this is a joke in more ways than one, because GNU most certainly IS Unix. Because of trademark concerns ("Unix" is trademarked by AT&T) they simply could not claim that it was Unix, and so, just to be extra safe, they claimed that it wasn't."
Despite the pedantic point that the trademark is now owned by someone else, he hit the nail on the head.
If I'm not mistaken, the trademark has been owned, at least, by the following: Bell Labs, AT&T, Novell, X/Open, and The Open Group. However, the ownership of the original code has passed from Bell Labs to AT&T to Novell to SCO. Again, if I'm not mistaken, the trademark and the original code base are now owned by two different entities. It is in my opinion ludicrous for anyone to assert their rights to the word unix anymore - though I would not encourage anyone to try naming their product XYZ Unix or some variation along the lines of UnixWare, I think that everyone has every right to describe their systems appropriately, including people who run Linux; and Linux is a unix system.
If you look at The Open Group's discussion of their trademarks [opengroup.org], you'll see just how silly the whole idea of claiming ownership to the word unix really is; these measures are too late. Language has owned the word for some time now. Hardly a day goes by that I don't hear, in common speech at work, at least one of their examples violated on how they don't want you to use the word unix. Specifically, I constantly hear people refer to "the unix box," "a unix box," or "one of the unix boxes," when in fact they are talking about different types of machines and different implementations of unix.
Do not let this word game encourage people to perceive Linux as somehow less deserving of the name than its commercial counterparts. A unix, by any other name, is still a unix.
Let me see if I got this straight... (Score:1)
If that's true, then the best way to prepare for the future is to set up a box that boots Linux, your favorite BSD distribution, and Solaris, and boot and use all three regularly.
If you can use all three without too much trouble and can recognize the differences between the systems in your sleep, then get a second box and networking hardware and build a very small network using every combination of server OS to client OS possible. If you can do all that succesfully, then you're ready for an admin job just about anywhere (And if you run into a weird configuration like IRIX, at least you know approximately where to look for help...)
Software vs. Hardware (Score:1)
Flourish (Score:1)
This is a paradigm shift, as much as I despise that word. =)
quux26
Linux and the future (Score:3)
Yet.
"The demand for just Linux skills isn't all that high yet," Pritchard says. "Most of the Linux people I know don't have Linux-specific jobs."
Yet.
Those who ignore the future are doomed to regret it. Linux is the future, there's no denying it (flame all you want, but it's the truth and you all know it). The article mentions it being "barely 8 years old;" how old is Microsoft now? Twice that? Compare how far Microsoft's "advances" have been in that amount of time to how far Linux has come in half that time. Now think how far it's going to go in the future with more and more supporters and programmers hacking at it with each passing day compared to how far Windows 2000 (tm)(r)(s)(c) supporters and programmers will be able to take it in the same amount of time. Clearly, since Linux has already surpassed it in speed, reliability, stability and the ability to be almost instantaneously patched against things like bugs and security flaws (how long does it take MS to come out with a service pack for bugs they knew were there before they even released it?), it will always be ahead of MS in those areas. Combine that with the fact that it is free and runs on damn near any hardware and most everything on it is written in C, which can be ported to any other platform or OS, and that it can do most anything Solaris or Irix or AIX or HPUX or VMS can do for a slightly monumental price, there is literally no stopping it; it will eventually dominate.
Now, taking all that into consideration, does it make sense for any company or sysadmin/programmer to just ignore it now? Perhaps it doesn't have all the 3rd-party applications that Windows has... but it will. Perhaps support for a few peripheral hardware devices and interfaces doesn't exist or needs to improve... but it will. And some bright, sunny, shiny, happy day in the very near future, when Linux... or even just *nix... rules all, those of us who have believed in it all along will be so far ahead of those who have ignored it all along that they won't have a chance of learning all they need to know to <buzzword> compete </buzzword> with us. (By "us" I mean companies and individuals...)
Prognostication is the key to future success. A lot of us already know the future and are well prepared for it; a lot of people don't have the vision or imagination to see it, or are so comfortable with the status quo that change frightens them. They will be left behind. Oh, eventually they'll catch up; but for a good year or two, we'll be the hottest commodities on earth.
I for one can't wait...
"All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; next it is violently attacked; finally, it is held to be self-evident."
Yup. (Score:1)
linux is UNIX (Score:2)
If you can use Linux you can use Solaris 7, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, SunOS, etc, etc.
Linux Sucks (Score:1)
I work in a little school, and im planning in blowin windows away and deploy Linux in every computer in the lab and offices.
I'm not a hacker, not a cracker, i'm jus a person who has discovered the benefits of Linux/Unix and the big potential it has as a platform for limited budget schools (i live in Mexico).
Proven Market value? (Score:1)
Blah..
Another biased article (Score:1)
How transferable is Linux knowledge to UNIX? (Score:1)
Linux Sucks (Score:1)
--
Alan L. * Webmaster of www.UnixPower.org