Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs
in [General Linux]
|
From: Mr. Majestic on 4 Nov 2009 15:05 Ignoramus8745 wrote: > Keep something in mind here: we often talk about how Linux is > installed in companies without blessing of senior management, and then > makes some progress. Yeah, I saw that happen once where the IT director had smoke blown into his ear about Linux from the son he never had he hired out of Toco Bell, development effort made on Linux, IT director blew off senior staff who was MS, IT director didn't have the backing from VP of plant operations and he deployed Linux solutions in the plants. Needless to say it was a failure, the VP slit the IT director's throat in front of the CIO, VP's and president. And the IT director was quickly demoted and kicked to the side. > > Here we have a different story, which is that companies are now > requiring people they hire to have Linux knowledge. This is now a > matter of corporate policy, as opposed to some low level enthusiasts. > You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the budget. You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there are other stake holders involved.
From: dennis on 4 Nov 2009 15:20 "Aragorn" <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message news:hcrvkj$h1c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody > identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... > >> Of course there is another explanation.. >> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff. >> Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-) > > This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control > hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single > other Windows PC these days. <grin> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems.. they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load AV software or just turn them off.
From: chrisv on 4 Nov 2009 15:21 Mr. Majestic wrote: > You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux > initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the > budget. > > You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to > another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped > in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there > are other stake holders involved. Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You like building straw men that you can knock down?
From: Mr. Majestic on 4 Nov 2009 15:39 chrisv wrote: > Mr. Majestic wrote: > >> You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux >> initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the >> budget. >> >> You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to >> another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped >> in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there >> are other stake holders involved. > > Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You > like building straw men that you can knock down? > Yeah, with you being one of those straw men that gets knocked down with you doing the plonk-and-run two step.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 4 Nov 2009 18:11
Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote: > like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using Linux ^^^^^ Is that what you call a Red Hat afficionado?.. |