 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
