Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Plan B: Try the local paper...

Well, that worked a little better. Of the 27 jobs returned from my 
search, 7 of them were actually what I asked for (rather than some 
superficially similar-sounding job), and I was able to apply to 2 of them.

OTOH, it's the local paper. They get two or three computer jobs *per 
month*. o_O And that's for web design, data entry, technical support and 
every other computer-related category put together, not just the one 
specific area I'm looking at.

Oh dears.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Maybe it means "Unix operating systems in general, but especially Linux
>> and Solaris, and from all Linux distros especially Red Hat".
> 
> In my experience, no, it just means the person putting together the list 
> doesn't know what they're talking about, literally. They have a pile of 
> paper with a list of skills different people told them they were looking 
> for, so they wrote them all down.

This seems to be my experience too.

I briefly mentioned on one CV that one of the programs I wrote deleted 
various temp files, including the "web cache". And I got some recruiter 
calling me up claiming that I was ideal for a role because I "know 
cashae", which apparently is some niche programming language used in the 
healthcare system. Way to completely fail to comprehend what I wrote, man!

> Either 
> that, or they're optimizing for search engines, just plugging in what 
> everyone might search for.

That too. Lots and lots of these things start with a long list of search 
terms before the [vaguely] human-readable part starts.

Reading these adverts, one gets the impression of some underpaid nobody 
hurridly scribbling down text all day without the slightest clue what 
they're talking about, and without bothering with such niceties as 
spelling and grammar.

Post a reply to this message

>> If a job pays £30,000, you're going to be in charge of an entire 
>> department or something,
> 
> Err, no.  FWIW the starting salary for graduates at our place wasn't 
> much below that several years ago.

*Starting* salary?

Most of the "graduate jobs" I can find say something like £18,000 or 
maybe even £20,000 if you have a 1st degree [which I don't].

> For someone with a degree and 5 years relevant experience

[7 years]

> I'd say 30k was easily achievable and you 
> wouldn't be expected to be in charge of anyone.

Really? I find that quite surprising.

Hell, my sister is an accountant and she doesn't earn nearly that much. 
And my dad has over 30 years experience as a parmacutical analyst 
[that's highly skilled, specialist work that's difficult to hire for] 
and he earns less than that.

>> But hey, some of the other jobs I saw today offered £50,000 or more. 
>> (I hadn't realised that there are real people out there who actually 
>> earn this much money.
> 
> I don't think I've ever had a boss that earned less than 50K.  I think 
> you have a totally skewed view of salaries because you are paid so 
> little in your current job.

Hmm, thinking about it... I vaguely "know" our CEO. He must surely be on 
a bit more than 50K. I "know" our Director of IT [who no longer works 
here as of Friday], and he probably earns a tad more than 50K too.

I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how 
much more money they earn than you do...

Post a reply to this message

> *Starting* salary?

Yes!  I just did a search on monster for "graduate software" and nearly 
every result had a salary range somewhere between 20 and 30K as a *starting* 
salary.  The same is true of "graduate engineer".  Heck, two of my best 
friends from University (both did computer science) got a job with this 
company writing software for internet routers and their starting salary was 
30K.  My starting salary was closer to 20K than 30K, but that was 7 years 
ago, I know now they are offering new graduates closer to 30K.

> Most of the "graduate jobs" I can find say something like £18,000 or maybe 
> even £20,000 if you have a 1st degree [which I don't].

According to prospects.ac.uk the average graduate starting salary ranges 
from 20 to 25k depending on who you ask.  I would imagine that having a 
computer science degree would put you above the average.

>> For someone with a degree and 5 years relevant experience
>
> [7 years]
>
>> I'd say 30k was easily achievable and you wouldn't be expected to be in 
>> charge of anyone.
>
> Really? I find that quite surprising.

How come? Even if you started on 20K, a 50% pay increase over 7 years is not 
surprising.

> Hell, my sister is an accountant and she doesn't earn nearly that much.

If she is working for a reputable accountancy firm, has done the 
qualifications and has more than 7 years experience (IIRC she is older than 
you?) then that seems pretty poor pay to me.

> Hmm, thinking about it... I vaguely "know" our CEO. He must surely be on a 
> bit more than 50K.

Probably a big "bit" more.

> I "know" our Director of IT [who no longer works here as of Friday], and 
> he probably earns a tad more than 50K too.

You'd think so.

> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how 
> much more money they earn than you do...

You can easily estimate it though, by looking at similar jobs at other 
companies, how your internal pay structure works etc.  For example I know 
that my manager must be earning more than a "lead engineer", which must be 
earning more than I do.  I know roughly what % increase you get for 
promotion, so my manager must be on about 60-70K.  I can also then guess 
that the director of my department is on about 80-90K, and the MD probably 
110-130K.  This ties in well with job adverts I've seen for similar 
positions in other companies, and from talking with other people.

Post a reply to this message

>> *Starting* salary?
> 
> Yes!  I just did a search on monster for "graduate software" and nearly 
> every result had a salary range somewhere between 20 and 30K as a 
> *starting* salary.  The same is true of "graduate engineer".  Heck, two 
> of my best friends from University (both did computer science) got a job 
> with this company writing software for internet routers and their 
> starting salary was 30K.  My starting salary was closer to 20K than 30K, 
> but that was 7 years ago, I know now they are offering new graduates 
> closer to 30K.

Writing software for Internet routers sounds like pretty specialist 
stuff. (It's basically writing security-critical software for an 
embedded platform.) I'd be surprised if somebody with no qualifications 
other than a degree could actually get a job like that. Especially if it 
was just an average degree, not a spectacular one.

> According to prospects.ac.uk the average graduate starting salary ranges 
> from 20 to 25k depending on who you ask.  I would imagine that having a 
> computer science degree would put you above the average.

Hmm. This is completely at variance with my experience, so something's 
wrong somewhere. Not sure where exactly...

>>> I'd say 30k was easily achievable and you wouldn't be expected to be 
>>> in charge of anyone.
>>
>> Really? I find that quite surprising.
> 
> How come? Even if you started on 20K, a 50% pay increase over 7 years is 
> not surprising.

Er... OK, I may have got my maths wrong here, but if we assume that you 
get pay increases as large as 0.5% every single year, that still works 
out to only about 3.55% over 7 years. Which is nowhere even close to 50%.

>> Hell, my sister is an accountant and she doesn't earn nearly that much.
> 
> If she is working for a reputable accountancy firm, has done the 
> qualifications and has more than 7 years experience (IIRC she is older 
> than you?) then that seems pretty poor pay to me.

She's younger. She hasn't been in accounting for 7 years, and doesn't 
have her qualification *yet*. (She gets her final exam results this 
month IIRC.)

>> Hmm, thinking about it... I vaguely "know" our CEO. He must surely be 
>> on a bit more than 50K.
> 
> Probably a big "bit" more.

Yes, that was a typically British understatement. I realise that might 
not come across in NNTP. ;-)

>> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how 
>> much more money they earn than you do...
> 
> You can easily estimate it though, by looking at similar jobs at other 
> companies, how your internal pay structure works etc.  For example I 
> know that my manager must be earning more than a "lead engineer", which 
> must be earning more than I do.  I know roughly what % increase you get 
> for promotion, so my manager must be on about 60-70K.  I can also then 
> guess that the director of my department is on about 80-90K, and the MD 
> probably 110-130K.  This ties in well with job adverts I've seen for 
> similar positions in other companies, and from talking with other people.

Damn, you really have your finger on the pulse, don't you? :-)

I guess as you say, the problem is that I only know people with quite 
low incomes. It seems incongruous to me that somebody without a PhD in 
astrophysics [or simply an enterprising genius] could actually earn 
decent money.

Post a reply to this message

> "Key skills and experiences required for this role are:
> 
> Unix, Windows, Linux, Red Hat, Solaris, OS environments. [...]"
> 
> Newsflash: Linux *is* Unix. Red Hat *is* Linux. And ALL of the above 
> *are* "OS environments". Learn basic English! :-P

They might have meant OS/2 variants. According to wikipedia
OS/2 is in use in various cash machines and ticket machines.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:

>> Unix, Windows, Linux, Red Hat, Solaris, OS environments. [...]"
> 
> They might have meant OS/2 variants.

OK. But they didn't *say* that, did they? Which would still qualify this 
as badly written. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Writing software for Internet routers sounds like pretty specialist stuff. 
> (It's basically writing security-critical software for an embedded 
> platform.) I'd be surprised if somebody with no qualifications other than 
> a degree could actually get a job like that.

They were only taking graduates, so obviously they were going to give 
training, they weren't expecting you to walk in on Monday and start 
programming routers.  The same way as my employer wasn't expecting me to 
walk in on my first day and design an LCD.  Hint, if it has "graduate" in 
the job title it probably means they aren't assuming anything more than a 
typical university course.

>> How come? Even if you started on 20K, a 50% pay increase over 7 years is 
>> not surprising.
>
> Er... OK, I may have got my maths wrong here, but if we assume that you 
> get pay increases as large as 0.5% every single year,

I assumed you'd get about about a 4% raise per year and maybe a single 
10-20% raise for a promotion during those 7 years.

If you're only getting 0.5% per year (last year or two can be excepted for 
obvious reasons) then that is really bad, inflation is usually 2-3% so 
you're actually getting a pay *cut* each year.  Never heard of that unless 
your company is in big trouble or doesn't want you any more.

> She's younger. She hasn't been in accounting for 7 years, and doesn't have 
> her qualification *yet*. (She gets her final exam results this month 
> IIRC.)

By the time she's passed her qualifications and got 7 years experience I 
would expect her to be over 30K.  Then you'll know someone :-)

> I guess as you say, the problem is that I only know people with quite low 
> incomes. It seems incongruous to me that somebody without a PhD in 
> astrophysics [or simply an enterprising genius] could actually earn decent 
> money.

I don't think you need to have a PhD in anything to earn decent money, or be 
amazingly clever.

Post a reply to this message

>> Writing software for Internet routers sounds like pretty specialist 
>> stuff. (It's basically writing security-critical software for an 
>> embedded platform.) I'd be surprised if somebody with no 
>> qualifications other than a degree could actually get a job like that.
> 
> They were only taking graduates, so obviously they were going to give 
> training, they weren't expecting you to walk in on Monday and start 
> programming routers.  The same way as my employer wasn't expecting me to 
> walk in on my first day and design an LCD.  Hint, if it has "graduate" 
> in the job title it probably means they aren't assuming anything more 
> than a typical university course.

Hmm, I hadn't tried doing any searches for graduate positions recently. 
Maybe I should try that, if only for completeness. Dr Pepper.

I'd bet even a graduate position would require a strong understanding of 
C though (and probably lab experience of writing firmware and flashing 
it onto microcontroller boards or similar). And at any rate, I don't 
suppose there are too many people hiring for this sort of thing. (In 
other words, they can pick the best of the best of the best, and if that 
isn't you, you needn't even apply.)

>>> How come? Even if you started on 20K, a 50% pay increase over 7 years 
>>> is not surprising.
>>
>> Er... OK, I may have got my maths wrong here, but if we assume that 
>> you get pay increases as large as 0.5% every single year,
> 
> I assumed you'd get about about a 4% raise per year and maybe a single 
> 10-20% raise for a promotion during those 7 years.

20% seems like a really rather large riase. (Unless you, like, 
single-handedly revolutionised an entire department or something.) Then 
again, having never received or met anybody who received a promotion, I 
guess I wouldn't know.

> If you're only getting 0.5% per year (last year or two can be excepted 
> for obvious reasons) then that is really bad, inflation is usually 2-3% 
> so you're actually getting a pay *cut* each year.  Never heard of that 
> unless your company is in big trouble or doesn't want you any more.

I don't think there's ever been a raise here of an entire percent. Most 
years there's no raise at all, but sometimes we get 0.25% or something. 
And when we do, everybody complains [which always seemed odd to me]. 
They say what you said "this is a pay cut". Personally, I would have 
thought *not* getting a raise would be worse... but what do I know?

Currently my employer loses around four million USD per year. You may 
remember there was recently some talk of the company globally handing 
out a 4% pay cut "temporarily". There used to be a time when the UK 
division was the only profitable site, but AFAIK now all sites are 
running at a loss of some size or other.

But hey, we've hardly had a single order on our books (i.e., the UK) for 
about a year and a half now. It costs money to pay people to stand 
around doing nothing. Seems like there's more activity happening in the 
lab recently though. I don't know if this is a trend or a fluctuation.

My plan, of course, is to not stick around to find out. ;-)

>> She's younger. She hasn't been in accounting for 7 years, and doesn't 
>> have her qualification *yet*. (She gets her final exam results this 
>> month IIRC.)
> 
> By the time she's passed her qualifications and got 7 years experience I 
> would expect her to be over 30K.  Then you'll know someone :-)

Heh, well, I guess we'll see.

Of course, she lives in Guildford, where the cost of living is 
apparently very much higher, so she'll probably still be fairly "poor".

>> I guess as you say, the problem is that I only know people with quite 
>> low incomes. It seems incongruous to me that somebody without a PhD in 
>> astrophysics [or simply an enterprising genius] could actually earn 
>> decent money.
> 
> I don't think you need to have a PhD in anything to earn decent money, 
> or be amazingly clever.

Right. Well then I guess it's just that everybody I've met happens to be 
fairly poor then.

Post a reply to this message

Plan C:

http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/jobs/uk/
http://www.nokia.com/A41199604
http://www-05.ibm.com/employment/uk/
http://h10055.www1.hp.com/jobsathp/content/home/home.asp?area=GB&Lang=ENen
...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Most of the "graduate jobs" I can find say something like £18,000 or
> maybe even £20,000 if you have a 1st degree [which I don't].
> 

A 1st degree is a Bachelor's whatever the class of it (2.1, 2.2, Richard
etc) which is not the same as a First (ie a First Class degree)
You have a 1st degree and should therefore be earning in the 20K+ range.

John
-- 
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum,  ||   These opinions are mine alone,   || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito     ||     others can find their own      || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:16:42 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Linux *is* Unix

No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's UNIX-like, 
perhaps, but it's not Unix.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:16:42 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> and all with salaries of £30,000 or higher [so, presumably beyond my
> experience level].

Don't let that be an inhibitor.  Let the prospective employer decide if 
you have the right amount of experience.  Don't pre-filter - apply for 
jobs you're interested in and let them decide if you're qualified.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Linux *is* Unix
> 
> No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's UNIX-like, 
> perhaps, but it's not Unix.

Care to explain that one?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:24:45 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I mean, seriously, this entire blurb is only a few lines long, and
> you've still managed to get it wrong. And you expect me to put together
> a 2-page CV which is immaculate and free of all error?
> 
> And I'm not supposed to hold *you* to the same standards because...?

Because you're the one looking for the job.  The quality of some 
recruiter's writing skills isn't necessarily representative of the entire 
company, but the quality of your writing skills is representative of 
you. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> somebody wrote:
> 
>> You are wasting time looking at these IT jobs. Your true calling is as
>> a PCCC (Professional Critic and Chronic Complainer).
> 
> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining about
> things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)

Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And I'm not supposed to hold *you* to the same standards because...?
> 
> Because you're the one looking for the job.

Seems there's an echo in here...

(But does it comply with RFC 862?)

> The quality of some 
> recruiter's writing skills isn't necessarily representative of the entire 
> company, but the quality of your writing skills is representative of 
> you. :-)

Ha! Well, we'll see... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining about
>> things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
> 
> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)

FILM CRITIC! :-D

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Linux *is* Unix
> > 
> > No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's UNIX-like, 
> > perhaps, but it's not Unix.

> Care to explain that one?

  By that definition there is no Unix OS in existence today.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:08:06 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> If a job pays £30,000, you're going to be in charge of an entire
> department or something, which is beyond my skills and experience.

Not necessarily - that's about $48,000 here in the US; I made more than 
that at my last IT job and I had no direct reports and the project I 
worked on had a project manager who wasn't me.  I was paid for my 
technical skills only.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> and all with salaries of £30,000 or higher [so, presumably beyond my
>> experience level].
> 
> Don't let that be an inhibitor.  Let the prospective employer decide if 
> you have the right amount of experience.  Don't pre-filter - apply for 
> jobs you're interested in and let them decide if you're qualified.

Well, maybe.

Here's the thing I don't get: On one of these sites, when you fill out a 
search form, you're required to specify the minimum AND MAXIMUM salary 
you will accept.

Why the **** would you have a *maximum* salary? WTF?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:07:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how
> much more money they earn than you do...

At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential 
and isn't supposed to be discussed with anyone other than your boss, HR, 
and payroll.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:33:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Doesn't it vary depending on how many hours you work?
>> 
>> sure, that is full time. 38 or 40 hours per week. Are you working
>> full-time?
> 
> I am. I was just clarifying the point that there's a dependence there.
> 
>>> Well, everybody else in this city seems to not have a problem finding
>>> a job, so...
>>>
>> Sorry, what *city*?
> 
> ...?

He's asking what city you're in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Most of the "graduate jobs" I can find say something like £18,000 
or 
> maybe even £20,000 if you have a 1st degree [which I don't].

You're looking in the wrong place. I made something like $35k *after* tax
es 
upon graduating from college, at a company no better off than yours. In 
1985. And this wasn't in a big bustling city either.

> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how 

> much more money they earn than you do...

Very true.

There are web sites that will give you average salaries for different job
s, 
you know.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> isn't you, you needn't even apply.)

You know, I've never heard anyone work so hard to justify staying miserable.

> Currently my employer loses around four million USD per year. 

Then it's definitely time to find a new job, wouldn't you say?

> Right. Well then I guess it's just that everybody I've met happens to be 
> fairly poor then.

If you rarely leave MK then that's probably true, yes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> somebody wrote:
>>
>>> You are wasting time looking at these IT jobs. Your true calling is as
>>> a PCCC (Professional Critic and Chronic Complainer).
>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining about
>> things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
> 
> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-02-01/

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential 

That's usually more a per-company kind of thing. But most companies want it 
that way, so they put it in the rules. It's not any sort of law or anything. 
And some salaries at the top are required to be disclosed.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:40:22 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> And I'm not supposed to hold *you* to the same standards because...?
>> 
>> Because you're the one looking for the job.
> 
> Seems there's an echo in here...
> 
> (But does it comply with RFC 862?)

That it might. :-)

>> The quality of some
>> recruiter's writing skills isn't necessarily representative of the
>> entire company, but the quality of your writing skills is
>> representative of you. :-)
> 
> Ha! Well, we'll see... ;-)

That's the spirit! :-)

Indeed, we shall. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:06:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>> somebody wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are wasting time looking at these IT jobs. Your true calling is
>>>> as a PCCC (Professional Critic and Chronic Complainer).
>>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining
>>> about things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
>> 
>> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)
> 
> http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-02-01/

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:40:51 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Heh. If it were somehow possible to get paid money for complaining
>>> about things, my mother would be a millionaire by now! ;-)
>> 
>> Technical editor, proofreader, or writing editor. :-)
> 
> FILM CRITIC! :-D

There's another one.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:07:08 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential
> 
> That's usually more a per-company kind of thing. But most companies want
> it that way, so they put it in the rules. It's not any sort of law or
> anything. And some salaries at the top are required to be disclosed.

True, especially in public companies.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:34:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Linux *is* Unix
>> 
>> No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's UNIX-like,
>> perhaps, but it's not Unix.
> 
> Care to explain that one?

http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html

Short version, to be UNIX it has to be "blessed" by "The Open Group" and 
Linux hasn't been.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:42:29 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> >> Linux *is* Unix
>> > 
>> > No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's
>> > UNIX-like, perhaps, but it's not Unix.
> 
>> Care to explain that one?
> 
>   By that definition there is no Unix OS in existence today.

Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that 
are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.

Linux isn't on that list.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:44:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Here's the thing I don't get: On one of these sites, when you fill out a
> search form, you're required to specify the minimum AND MAXIMUM salary
> you will accept.
> 
> Why the **** would you have a *maximum* salary? WTF?

I don't really get that either.  Unless it's for tax purposes - for 
example, if I move to the UK and get a job, if I make more than $80,000 
per year (I think it is), then as a US citizen, I owe the US government 
income taxes, even if I'm not living in the US.  So I might want to cap 
my income below that so I don't have to mess with hiring an accountant to 
figure out how much tax I owe to whom.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html

  Somehow I don't consider "we shouldn't call Linux Unix because nobody has
paid money to some organization in order to get the right to use that name"
as a very relevant argument on the question of whether Linux *is* a Unix
operating system. Just because it cannot *legally* be called that doesn't
mean it isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that 
> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.

  So it's mainly a question of money?

  I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether Linux
is Unix or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that 
>> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
> 
>   So it's mainly a question of money?
> 
>   I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether Linux
> is Unix or not.

Given the ones that *are* on the list, I would think it's more along the 
lines that none of the code in Linux was ever in UNIX. It's a completely new 
codebase that happens to do the same thing.  I.e., Linux isn't UNIX just 
like DR-DOS isn't MS-DOS and OS/2 isn't Windows.

It's the color of the bits.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Why the **** would you have a *maximum* salary? WTF?

They do the same with selling houses here.  "Accepting offers between $350K 
and $369K."  I asked a real estate agent about it once and asked if they'd 
ever gotten an offer above the minimum.  "No."

I think it's more that if you say "I'll settle for $30K but I'll take up to 
$50K", they'll know how you value yourself better.  I.e., it's a negotiating 
strategy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:30:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> http://stason.org/TULARC/os/linux-faq/007-Is-Linux-Unix.html
> 
>   Somehow I don't consider "we shouldn't call Linux Unix because nobody
>   has
> paid money to some organization in order to get the right to use that
> name" as a very relevant argument on the question of whether Linux *is*
> a Unix operating system. Just because it cannot *legally* be called that
> doesn't mean it isn't.

Well, The Open Group disagrees with you, and since they own the name, it 
seems that they get to make that decision. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:33:19 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Actually, Mac OSX, AIX, and Solaris are a few examples of systems that
>> are UNIX as defined by The Open Group, who owns the trademark.
> 
>   So it's mainly a question of money?
> 
>   I don't think money is a good argument on the question of whether
>   Linux
> is Unix or not.

The Open Group disagrees, and since they own the trademark, they get to 
set the rules.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Linux *is* Unix
>> 
>> No, it isn't.  Linux is at best a derivative of Minix.  It's UNIX-like,
>> perhaps, but it's not Unix.
> 
> Care to explain that one?

Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU 
*stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU 
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)

  "This name was chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from
Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code."

  Well, I suppose you *could* define "a Unix operating system" as
"proprietary operating system containing code from the original OS
named 'Unix'". However, that's not what the vast majority of people
*mean* when they use the term "unix". Being free or proprietary has
nothing to do with it, and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
"has code from the original Unix".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Well, Linux is a kernel; what you download in distros is GNU/Linux, and GNU 
> *stands* for "GNU is Not Unix" :)

Oh snap!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> "has code from the original Unix".

Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
>> "has code from the original Unix".
> 
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

There's some interesting info about GNU's POSIX compliance.

By default, a few GNU tools deviate from POSIX, leaving a way to enable 
POSIX compliance. There was an environment variable called POSIX_ME_HARDER 
to make several GNU things follow the POSIX specification more closely. It 
was then renamed to POSIXLY_CORRECT.

"POSIXLY_CORRECT exists so we have an excuse to say that we still support 
the spec, if you define the environment variable. POSIX_ME_HARDER was the 
original way. Then a slightly prudish board member convinced me to change it 
to POSIXLY_CORRECT which I now think was a mistake. I should have left it as 
POSIX_ME_HARDER."
-- Richard Stallman

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> > "has code from the original Unix".

> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

  Well, given that POSIX is defined as a family of standards which define
the API and command-line utilities for software compatible with Unix, I'd
say it's more or less the whole point (ie. that a POSIX-compliant OS could
be considered a Unix variant).

  (After all, the acronym itself contains the word "unix".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> 
> Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

That was my next question, yes. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> > 
> >> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> > 
> > Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

> That was my next question, yes. ;-)

  Partially POSIX-compliant is not the same as fully POSIX-compliant.
POSIX doesn't define only system calls.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1-2-2010 17:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:33:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>>>> Doesn't it vary depending on how many hours you work?
>>> sure, that is full time. 38 or 40 hours per week. Are you working
>>> full-time?
>> I am. I was just clarifying the point that there's a dependence there.
>>
>>>> Well, everybody else in this city seems to not have a problem finding
>>>> a job, so...
>>>>
>>> Sorry, what *city*?
>> ...?
> 
> He's asking what city you're in.

Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a 
real city.

Post a reply to this message