It is not uncommon to come across open positions that actually do require Unix (not Linux) experience.
For example, American Express has a large deployment of AIX systems and they indeed look for candidates with experience in AIX systems, although I believe someone with experience in another Unix or Unix-like system should also be okay.
But I agree that such openings are usually quite specific about which Unix system they are working with.
This is true, but I would imagine that, if not in the job description, if a really specific kind of Unix experience is required, it would come out in the exchange - and be really OS specific and actually say - True64, AIX, Solaris, etc.
"Unix-like" today means bsd/linux. The recruiter did bad, but recruiters will always do bad.
If its a job you want, don't let a recruiter foible disqualify you, if you can help it.
Eh, honestly I would've been similarly frustrated. The recruiter seems like they are being needlessly bureaucratic. Either they are familiar with Unix and thus should know that Unix-like is synonymous with Unix nowadays or they aren't and they should take your word.
Maybe you were a little condescending but it happens and rejecting someone on the basis of this exchange seems mad to me. If FB doesn't reverse their decision here I'd be surprised/disappointed.
I read the exchange as cutting the recruiter slack. He didn't say "you're wrong" or "you're an idiot." It seems to me he's saying "here's how I understand what you're saying, and here's why I think my skills meet your qualifications."
Do remember that we are talking about internships here.
If I have a task for an intern that requires some shell-scripting, and the intern already understands what it means to pipe commands, I put my hands together in silent thanks.
However, the HR person clearly filtered with "==UNIX". Hence, any explanation to him/her just wasted everybodies time. A different approach might have landed Stanley an interview with a Tech and the world might have looked different.
But then, he has plenty of new Tech contacts now. ;-)
> If I have a task for an intern that requires some shell-scripting, and the intern already understands what it means to pipe commands, I put my hands together in silent thanks.
I thought we were talking about university students studying CS or related discipline?
How on earth would a uni student in CS don't know about piping commands? Does this actually happen? I dropped out of uni after 1,5 years, and I studied bioinformatics, not CS, but even then I considered using pipes as basic and universal skill for any "advanced user", not even an engineer.
> How on earth would a uni student in CS don't know about piping commands?
Beyond the obvious ones, lots and lots of valid reasons this could happen:
1. Student is entirely new to programming as a concept and just started in university. Not every fresh CS student has been programming since birth.
2. Student uses the shell entirely for basic commands and honestly doesn't even realize it can be used for more advanced things
3. Student is really interested in the "Science" part of CS and isn't planning on being a developer. Plenty of brilliant CS minds are awful at the programming part but extremely adept at, say, consensus protocols.
Your basic first year CS curriculum might offer a crash course in things like basic shell scripting, but it's certainly not a given. Computer Science is a very broad field and it's arguably a huge waste of time for them to teach you how to pipe commands when they could be teaching you something you can't pick up in 10 minutes, like automata theory.
Many interns I've been in charge of were not comfortable in the command line and most had no experience outside of windows. Writing shell scripts? The everything-is-a-file concept in Unix? You're lucky if they know what you are talking about.
It highly depends on where and what exactly you study, but in many cases you've probably been explained shell basics once and can get by with knowledge how to to copy-paste commands to install packages and basic git usage.
Of course, many students are interested in more and learn it, but isn't a requirement, so students with other interests have no real need for it.
Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and FreeBSD are all Unix systems. With the exception of FreeBSD they are all also UNIX, because other than FreeBSD the other three are commercial Unix OSes that have been certified and therefore hold a license to use the trademarked name UNIX.
Debian GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system because Linux is not Unix, but it is Unix-like and when combined with a GNU userland is POSIX compliant.
For which definition of UNIX? There are 'genetic unices' - systems that directly descent from AT&T UNIX. From your list Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and FreeBSD are (genetic) UNIX, since they all descent from AT&T UNIX (FreeBSD via the Berkely distribution of UNIX).
Then there are 'trademark unices', which are systems that implement the Single UNIX Specification and are certified to be compliant. Such a system does not need to be a descendant of AT&T UNIX. From your list, Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX are (trademark) UNIX [1]. Note that there is also a RHEL-deriver Linux distribution, EulerOS, that is a certified UNIX.
In fact, the recruiter was the one that introduced "UNIX-like" term, in a reply to second resume change. Judging from that, I'd say this recruiter is intentionally malicious.
Agree. This is a recruiter-like person. I doubt he knows at all about "Unix-like" systems. He debated about words hiding his own shortcomings. I would have replied "you needed it" to the comment "thanks for the tutorial".
The administration wrote the policy then the DHS interpreted it. Then the administration overruled that interpretation. And then about a day later the administration changed its mind. It's almost as if they should've thought about this proposal for another 48 hours before signing it.
I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things.
Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends.
Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that.
Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none.
Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not.
Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.
My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).
Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things.
Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.
Not sure if you are joking, but Pauling was pretty wrong when talking about vitamin C. His ideas were repeatedly rejected by actual research studies and yet he kept pursuing vitamin C. I assign him very little credibility in this arena.
Also he was making money from the sale of his books.
The speculative value is well out of line with its use value.