×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Want an IT Job? Add 'Cloud' To Your Buzzword List

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the resume-in-the-sky dept.

Businesses 187

jfruhlinger writes "There was a predicted uptick in IT hiring for late this year, but it's mid-November and it hasn't happened yet. Kevin Fogarty does see growth in one area, though: cloud and virtualization experts are being fought over, lured away from in-house jobs to cloud consultancies popping up everywhere."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no I won't (2, Insightful)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265870)

I want an interesting job: administering java legoes written by computer idiots is not exactly a dream job.

Re:no I won't (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34265930)

Sorry to break it to you, but most computer related jobs are quite boring. The low-level jobs anyway, like in any industry.

Re:no I won't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34265976)

Depends on what you mean by "low level"

I'd rather work on some obscure network and infrastructure issue than solve some end user problem. End users ARE boring. Their problems are always stupid or caused by some misconception a bout computing they have(for example being convinced that computers are able to really perform human like reasoning and wanting to offload to a computer their managerial and intellectual work)

Re:no I won't (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266336)

Depends on what you mean by "low level"

I'd rather work on some obscure network and infrastructure issue than solve some end user problem. End users ARE boring. Their problems are always stupid or caused by some misconception a bout computing they have(for example being convinced that computers are able to really perform human like reasoning and wanting to offload to a computer their managerial and intellectual work)

The first part of your statement after "End users ARE boring." made me think... now there is a true programmer. *My program is perfect, its the end user that is the problem*. But then you quantified your statement further. However, the end user is right. It just depends on how much money they want to spend to "automate" their desired outcome.

Re:Users (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266864)

MCP : "What's the matter Sark? You look Nervous."
Sark: "It's just we've never had a user before."

Job market slow? Not everywhere. (4, Informative)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266114)

In my experience, there's plenty of choice. Not all of it great, of course, but there are some real gems passing along every now and then. They just get swamped in job offers for big Java enterprisey stuff. I try to scare them away by mentioning I don't want to work with Java, JSP or Struts, but since my CV contains the word "Java", they still contact me.

Interestingly, they also contact me when they need an Erlang or Python expert, despite the fact that I have no experience in those languages. But my CV says I want to learn them. Really, nobody ever reads CVs. They just do basic pattern matching and assume that's good enough.

My most interesting recent offer was from a company that wanted to switch to Scala. They had no Scala expertise yet, but needed some people wiling to learn and guide the transition. But it was almost an hour commute, partially by train, and I want to go to work by bike. But there's enough choice to be this picky, so the job market isn't exactly slow where I live.

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266242)

Where do you live?

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266446)

Amsterdam, Netherland. I guess it's different here than in much of the US. I was unemployed for over a year after the dot-com crash, but I hardly noticed the current recession.

On the other hand, I just googled a bit, and found figures that unemployment in Dutch IT was over 12% last year. So maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe I'm in a different branch of IT? I've been switching jobs quite regularly over the past few years, and have never had trouble finding anything.

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266656)

I'm kinda jealous, i live in Leeuwarden, and all i see are callcenter jobs for upc.

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266752)

Leeuwarden doesn't really sound like the center of all programming activity to me. Most jobs I see are in Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, Den Bosch, Almere, or even Apeldoorn. Not a lot north of that, I'm afraid. I do recall something in Drachten? Beesterzwaag? But I can imagine it's harder to find something good up there.

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266818)

There are places looking for Erlang developers? Where, and how much do they pay?

Re:Job market slow? Not everywhere. (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267148)

Amsterdam, apparently, and paying enough to live in the Netherlands. From where I sit, this falls squarely in the category of "sounds far too good to be true." Then again, I only know enough Erlang to hack on eJabberd a little.

Re:no I won't (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266498)

"Sorry to break it to you, but most computer related jobs are quite boring."

That really depends on the person. Some people could find them boring while others could find them quite fun.

Re:no I won't (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266734)

You are exactly right. To get a good IT job, one needs to have additional expertise, besides coding what he is told: mathematics, biology, physics, non-IT technologies, business. There are very few good jobs left for experts in only computer science. If you look at the successful famous programmers, they all have something extra to their coding skills, vast majority of them being quite shrewd in business.

The only pure CS successes (admittedly, rather dubious) I could think of are hackers, people who are able to discover various deficiencies in the software written by other people. A lot of them, actually, using some extra information (besides "mad zkillz") - insiders, etc.

Get a second major, college boys. Seriously.

clouds huh? (2, Funny)

knotprawn (1935752) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265876)

sounds like rather clouded judgement to me

IT jerb forecasters are always wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34265918)

hear their lies to avert their competition like how microsoft destroyed pc repair businesses and employment by involving mcse credentials priority over actual homebrew credentials and hobbyists to inflate payroll by a bunch of soulless transient accreditted peices of opportunistic shittards that want money and chinese hardware to further divide any chances of american chip fabrication from returning to it's former plantation in the states.

Johny Mountain will insurrect a foul pissy weather from the south that will rise again to push the cloud away.

Re:clouds huh? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266794)

Yeah my vision is foggy.

Please show my an example IT resume that revolves around "cloud" programming, so I can copy it.

'k thx. L8r

Re:clouds huh? (1)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266876)

How dare you judge my children, I love my babies; some are little clouds some look like ec2....

i like cloud (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265888)

they purdy.

Today's word..."Cloud" (3, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265910)

I think it's important to define the word "Cloud" as no one else seems to, yet the definition itself lends great insight to the concept.

The "Cloud", as referenced here, is nothing more than the delegation of responsibilities...specifically those of infrastructure. That's it. It's not some mystical cure all. In fact, it's nothing more than a glorified way to outsource applications.

Now there are specific technologies which lend themselves to this concept ( those of virtualization, certainly ), but the overall goal is the same; the business doesn't want to worry about the infrastructure behind their app. They simply want it to work.

Which is why internal "clouds" have always amused me to no end...

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265980)

What does "cloud" mean? It means that I will eat you alive if I see it on your resume.

People can not talk intelligently about this subject. There are completely open issues from SLA's to security to handling 20 different versions of the OS on the servers in the "cloud". I include Steve Balmer on my list of people who can't clearly define this concept.

You ask people what is the cloud and they give "e-mail" or YouTube or an e-commerce site as an example.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (5, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266046)

I can define the cloud for you. Cloud (noun) : The symbol used to indicate parts of the network that you have no knowledge of. Frequently used by people to describe external computer resources as a new concept when their knowledge of computers only extends back to 1998.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (5, Funny)

BlindRobin (768267) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266208)

synonym of 'fog'.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (2, Interesting)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266606)

The symbol used to indicate parts of the network that you have no knowledge of.

That's the definition as it pertains to networking. It's now been extended to other types of hardware and certain types of software, and it all works on the concept of "I don't know where it is or what it looks like, but I do know that if I wave my hands like this then it all works just fine." As long as things actually do work, then that's a good thing: you're saved the effort of thinking about lots of frankly irrelevant crap (well, irrelevant to you; someone cares about it...)

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267096)

So by very definition, any blackbox solution is a "cloud"?

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266350)

What does "cloud" mean? It means that I will eat you alive if I see it on your resume.

Tell them you worked on Cloud computing on "Plan 9 [wikipedia.org] ". If pushed just say "I've been on cloud 9 for years now".

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (2, Interesting)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266012)

Which is why internal "clouds" have always amused me to no end...

Personally, as a *nix generalist, even the idea of an external "cloud" is ridiculous to me. What the hell does a company actually do, if it outsources even it's own knowledge management?

But I agree that an internal "cloud" is just as misguided. The sad fact is that most companies with more than a few hundred employees are organized as collections of surprisingly small fiefdoms. Even until recently, the idea of centralizing something as common as IT infrastructure really was so foreign to the typical corporate structure that it had to be sold in a way that those fiefdoms could treat it as an external service.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (2, Interesting)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266260)

I sat through a cloud lecture by some Microsoft guy, and he said it's aimed at startups, that don't know what server load to expect, and want a scalable solution. Practically Microsoft hosts the app with database and everything, the app must be written against a specific cloud api (in some .net language), and they bill by CPU time, network throughput and database size.

Scalability should never be a startup's problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266968)

There are two reasons why scalability becomes a problem for most startups: stupid management and stupid developers.

Even the cheapest of modern servers are extremely powerful. A web-based startup can spend merely $3000, and for that they can get 4 to 5 servers. Using Linux, PostgreSQL, Python and other free and open source software means the only cost is in setting up the systems and maintaining them. Even that should never be an issue, because a good developer should have absolutely no problem with basic system administration tasks as part of their development job.

Those 4 to 5 servers should be enough to run the business for years. They'll give you 2 production web servers, 2 production database servers, and a server to use for hosting testing environments and other internal software. You get performance, you get redundancy, you get physical separation, and you get all of this at a relatively low cost.

Now, when it comes to the software, there are some guidelines. The first is that you shouldn't use MySQL, and you shouldn't use a so-called NoSQL database. Never use an ORM. Those are recipes for disaster. Use PostgreSQL or Firebird, and for crying out loud, write your queries by hand, and learn how to use indexes properly (or hire somebody who can).

Most of the scalability problems we hear about from startups are due to the fact that their developers are absolutely fucking clueless about how to use relational databases properly. I've dealt with some developers who don't even know what joins are, let alone what an index is or does.

You have to keep your architecture sensible. You know you're entering the danger zone when you start hearing terms like IoC, ORM, patterns, services, SOA, SaaS, and yes, Cloud Computing, coming up in meetings. The best way to achieve scalability is to just write the code as simply as possible at first, and only when you find true bottlenecks should very targeted improvements be made.

Once you start with crap like dependency injection and creating "services", you'll waste your development time building the architecture that's supposedly there to "support" your application, rather than working on the application itself. It'll be fucking hell to debug, and then it'll fall apart when even under a very minimal production load.

Scalability problems are usually just a sign of a startup hiring stupid developers, or hiring stupid managers who don't recognize the value of hiring good developers.

Re:Scalability should never be a startup's problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34267000)

You seem to have left out bandwidth.

I prefer the 'I' in IaaS (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267062)

[...] the app must be written against a specific cloud api (in some .net language)[...]

That's PaaS (Platform as a service), that's what I would expect from MS, leading to vendor lock-in with specific API's, it could have been more open and portable to your own servers or other PaaS providers. This is the "here are my balls, can you please hold them for a while?" IT planning strategy. It's just not good for you, the party on the squeezing side of the deal however...

From a customers point of view, IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) would make much more sense: paying for VM domains, memory, bandwidth as needed. Probably costs a few percents more than if you did it yourself. Perhaps some more risks for unavailability and nobody you can threaten to fire in that case.

From a software vendor's point of view, you would go for SaaS (Software as a Service). Pricing, continuous revenue, less versions to maintain,...

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266356)

What the hell does a company actually do, if it outsources even it's own knowledge management?

The good news is that they don't have to know what they're doing, someone external will know for them.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266024)

I think it's important to define the word "Cloud" as no one else seems to, yet the definition itself lends great insight to the concept.

The "Cloud", as referenced here, is nothing more than the delegation of responsibilities...specifically those of infrastructure. That's it. It's not some mystical cure all. In fact, it's nothing more than a glorified way to outsource applications.

Seems like the whole of IT really. It was never just buy software, be productive. Enterprise developers really are doing business process analysis and optimization (in concert with management ... maybe). Considering most companies aren't competent at infrastructure and maintenance it makes sense to make it someone else's problem.

The new deal is your business process is meshed directly into another companies'. Better hope they keep up that service level. Hopefully there will be a clean migration standard if you want to change cloud supplier and all your company data is tied up there. Written into the contract. Hahahahaha.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (4, Interesting)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266058)

The "Cloud", as referenced here, is nothing more than the delegation of responsibilities...specifically those of infrastructure. That's it. It's not some mystical cure all. In fact, it's nothing more than a glorified way to outsource applications.

Well, no. The cloud they referenced was an "abstracted data-center infrastructure" and not necessarily a means of outsourcing applications. Yes, the downside/upside is that it eases moving workloads from internal to external clouds, but that's the point.

Now there are specific technologies which lend themselves to this concept ( those of virtualization, certainly ), but the overall goal is the same; the business doesn't want to worry about the infrastructure behind their app. They simply want it to work.

Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure? Traditionally servers are designed around the concept of a physical server. We used to name servers by rack number or some other geographic location. Virtual machines were often named according to what physical server they resided within. Cloud technology, once the marketing speak is burned away and the APIs get to a mature and standard state (i.e., an in-house or an outside hosted cloud looks the same to an application), would allow other ways of managing the hundreds of thousands of machines in large data centers.

For example, capacity planning is a big deal. One of the responsibilities of a system engineer is to ensure that workloads can run properly on the servers. When there is a planned outage on one server or an increased load due to seasonal or scheduled work, the admins have to juggle the resources of the servers. In a planned outage we may use VMWare VMotion or Workload Migration and swing the workloads across. But then we often have to worry about IP changes, hostnames, virtual host software levels, etc.. With a properly configured internal cloud, this is a non-issue. I can literally click a button and remove a physical server from the cluster and it's completely transparent to end-users. Need to add capacity? I SAN-boot a cloned disk and the new server is automatically part of the cloud and ready to take on work.

We used to build our environments around managing discrete servers. Even if we had streamlined the process, it was still very much centered around the physical box. For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks, /etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail.

Of course it's not there yet, but it's where the more recent virtualization technologies was 5 years ago (and yeah, virtualilzation has been out for decades, but it has only within the past decade really surged).

Yes, it is a very bad thing (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266150)

Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure?

Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (3, Insightful)

Brian Quinlan (252202) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266228)

Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure?

Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.

I agree. Which is why I would assume that your company manages the following infrastructure internally:

  • Power
  • Connectivity (data and voice both mobile and wired)
  • Transportation (you'd hate for your employees not to be able to get to work because the public roads are super-congested or otherwise unavailable)
  • Water (without working toilets your business is going to be in the crapper pretty quickly)
  • ...

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266364)

I shit into the cloud, and from the cloud cometh food.

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (4, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266426)

All larger companies do have a "facilities management" department, which does at least some of these:
  • Power: they manage their own on-site power wiring. And UPS and (for some) even an onsite generating station (we have, and we even sell excess power to the grid)
  • Communication: they manage their office network and their PABX (to which both desk phones and company-issued DECT phones are connected. And many companies run a blackberry server)
  • Transportation: During winter, on-campus roads are gritted by the company, not by the commune. For foot travel between buildings, our company offers complimentary umbrellas :-) Within buildings there are elevators. And guess who built the parking lots, and the speed bumps on the access roads, and even the access roads themselves?
  • Water: On site water distribution is organized by the company. Some even have their own wells or storage ponds (think steel mills or others who need non-trivial quantities of water for cooling purpose)

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (2, Funny)

definate (876684) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266354)

Phft. That's just pre-cloud thinking, in this post-cloud world we currently live in!

Get with the times grandpa!

Beowful synergy!

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267128)

That's cloudy thinking :)

There is nothing wrong with The Cloud! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266810)

Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266988)

Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.

You mean, like how they utterly rely on the network (true of many businesses) and so are their own ISP?

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266214)

grid computing it's only half of the equation of scalability, and usually the easier one.

you also need all the published service to scale transparently with the number of host, cores, disks, whatever.

that is the hard part. and once you attain that, having the router load balancing internal or outsourced doesn't really mater anymore. because that's the service the cloud offer: managing load balancing. which is the easier part of grid computing.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266502)

"For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks, /etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail."

Right, because on the "cloud" these problems just disappear. The machines suddenly know how to communicate with each other and what to do in the event of a random failure of any given server because you're calling them a "cloud" instead of "server cluster".

You're not actually explaining what the hell the difference is between a large number of virtual servers and a cloud. Just that this difference solves lots of problems.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266554)

What you're described isn't cloud computing, it's a server cluster.

The difference is that a "cloud" is a cluster of servers which spans many geographic locations. It's fine & dandy to be able to just run down to the datacenter and slap in a new chassis, and be able to bring it up with a click of a button. In fact, it's great. But people moving to "cloud computing" are spreading their datacenter across a WAN, which adds the additional complexity of connectivity between the different physical locations, as well as massive security concerns both in terms of data in transit as well as physical.

As a network admin, you should know even more about the physical layout of "the cloud" in order to properly mitigate risks, but by the very nature of the 'cloud' these details are hidden.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266678)

For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks, /etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail.

A cloud doesn't magically give you HA. Unless you're using a very different definition of "HA" than I'm used to.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266832)

He's using HA in the Nelson Muntz sense.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266084)

I like your definition. I love working on applications, and I hate dealing with infrastructure. Yet infrastructure always seems to involved somehow. If "cloud" computing will help me to abstract infrastructure away and ignore it, then I'm all for it.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (2, Interesting)

Leebert (1694) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266434)

...but the overall goal is the same; the business doesn't want to worry about the infrastructure behind their app. They simply want it to work.

Which is why internal "clouds" have always amused me to no end...

It's understandable that you'd think that way if you don't understand how wildly organizational structures vary from organization to organization, and you're used to organizations where there is "The IT department" and customers of that IT department. In that case, yes, why on earth would The IT department build a "cloud", when the only customers of it would be themselves?

I'll give you an example of where this is arguably a good idea: NASA. Across ten or so centers, there are hundreds of generally self-sufficient small projects. The norm for many projects is to run their own small data centers (ranging from a single server running under someone's desk and up), because shared services typically don't provide the flexibility they need. Often this is software dev, wacky data distribution (like GDS), that sort of thing.

In that environment, an Infrastructure cloud (IaaS, whatever buzzword strikes your fancy) starts to make sense. Which is exactly what NASA is doing, though I'll reserve judgment as to how good of an idea it was until it's been in place for a couple of years. :) But in theory and on paper, it's not unreasonable to have an "internal" cloud.

I have no doubt that it would be similarly a "good idea" in other organizations, like a large university.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (3, Informative)

homesnatch (1089609) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266740)

Everyone is confused about the "cloud" because everyone over-uses the term.

Essentially, the "Cloud" has three main points:
It is a set of infrastructure resources.
It is dynamically provisioned.
It is self-service.

Note that it has nothing to do with whether the resources are internal or external. I run an "internal" cloud at my company.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266788)

"Internal clouds" are for easily balancing virtual servers and apps.

Re:Today's word..."Cloud" (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266890)

"I would like to present the software solution MyCloud from the company MyCloud. Here we are. We're the princes of the Internet. Here we belong, fighting for survival. We've got to be rulers of your world. Is shall have no rival!"

not grids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34265924)

guess im showing my age .

Re:not grids? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266066)

Is that, like, some kind of connection machine or something?

Re:not grids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266520)

It's a networking app. You use it to find a job.

Same old story behind the cloud (1)

nomad-9 (1423689) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265938)

Lots of marketing noise, relabeling of old products (aka "cloud washing"), misunderstandings & over-hype.

Might be true innovation in the long term. Or might be just another trick to lock us into proprietary systems. Or a bit of both.

Re:Same old story behind the cloud (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34265988)

I believe it's the latter, plus data mining.

What better way to collect and sell valuable data than to have your customers entrust you with their confidential files and emails?

If the company that does no evil does it, what about those who don't care about what's good or evil?

I've also witnessed said "cloud" companies hold customer data ransom (ie, you cant just grab your files and go home, forget to pay the bills? bye bye data, and good luck pulling them out of some systems.)

Remember everyone's fears in 2003 when it was suspected that microsoft and other companies would start charging you to access your own files and essentially control your data?

Funny how that came true and people are buying the idea up, it just didnt happen to the desktop..

yet. (Watch, windows 8 will become more "cloud" dependent) Soon your logins (unless joined to a domain) will be handled with a .Net passport and your documents will be synced on "the cloud" and if you dont pay for the cloud services, the local copies will become locked and will not be accessible otherwise due to being stored in a encrypted and DRM locked down file that mounts as a filesystem.

Re:Same old story behind the cloud (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266034)

Remember everyone's fears in 2003 when it was suspected that microsoft and other companies would start charging you to access your own files and essentially control your data?

Those fears only existed in the IT community. Accountants and, by extension, corporate officers, loved the idea.

Re:Same old story behind the cloud (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266088)

Soon your logins (unless joined to a domain) will be handled with a .Net passport and your documents will be synced on "the cloud" and if you dont pay for the cloud services, the local copies will become locked and will not be accessible otherwise due to being stored in a encrypted and DRM locked down file that mounts as a filesystem.

the year this happens would be the year of linux on the (home)desktop(simply due to piracy in such a scenario being virtually impossible)

enumerate overrated job-providing buzzwords... (3, Informative)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265942)

I'll start... XML

Re:enumerate overrated job-providing buzzwords... (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265972)

Thin Client
Hey, isn't that a synonym for Cloud? I guess I will be adding "cloud computing" to my resume after all.

Re:enumerate overrated job-providing buzzwords... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266190)

Java.

Re:enumerate overrated job-providing buzzwords... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266976)

J2EE EJB

(EDIT: my captcha was the word "Virgin" ROFL.

ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (2, Interesting)

parasite (14751) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265950)

Is there any way an amateur programmer with a CS degree but only 3 years work experience under his belt could add this to his resume in a reasonable time frame and thus become a shoe-in for entry-level cloud positions?

I am desperate for work. It has been 2 years now :( Reading that pile of SQL .NET and so on books doesn't seem to have helped my prospects at all, because recruiters and interviewers always only care about responsibilities I had in my last job, and wouldn't trust that I could do or know anything else.

The last recruiter I met pointed to the word "Linux" on my resume and said, "And LINUX, what the HELL is that anyway? I mean, you can probably tell me that you heard of it one time in college and it is an operating system or SOMETHING. Yeah?"

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266172)

3 years of work experience isn't bad. If it's good experience, you should be way better off then a starter.

I get the impression that location may actually be the biggest issue. Maybe IT companies cluster together. My guess is that in particular cool, small, innovative start-ups probably prefer to be in hip cities with lots of students and startups.

Every time I hear people claim the job market is slow, I'm thinking: not in Amsterdam (where I live). There's lots of small companies here that care more about whether you know what you're talking about, than about exact responsibilities in your last job. I mean, sure, it matters, but for every job so far, I had to learn at least one new language, and that's been no problem for me so far. And I keep looking for jobs with languages I don't know yet (Scala, Erlang, Clojure), and I keep getting job offers for them. Or maybe my CV (that I really didn't put a lot of effort in) has something that makes it attract recruiters like flied, but I honestly have no idea why. Maybe because I list lots of new, interesting languages?

In any case, my advice is: figure out what kind of company you want to work for, and make yourself attractive to that kind of company. Move to whether those kind of companies are located. Make sure your CV shows the stuff they want to see.

Also, I think it's easier to be a convincing generalist than a convincing specialist there's always someone with more experience than you). So don't do just SQL, or just .Net, or just Linux. Show them you know a bit of everything, and can learn new stuff quickly, and tell in your CV what specific kinds of things are still on your to-learn list.

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (3, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266526)

Also, I think it's easier to be a convincing generalist than a convincing specialist there's always someone with more experience than you). So don't do just SQL, or just .Net, or just Linux. Show them you know a bit of everything, and can learn new stuff quickly, and tell in your CV what specific kinds of things are still on your to-learn list.

Definitely this. When I'm hiring a contractor/freelancer for a one-off job, I want specialist knowledge. When I'm hiring someone permanent, experience is always great but really what I want to see is that they have some interest beyond just slotting into a specific role for the sake of job security. If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just .NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn. I would also add that, even while out of work, there are things you can involve yourself in to show potential employers that you weren't just bumming around. Try writing to local business and offer your services cheap or even free, try and get involved with local charities or community events. It might pay little or nothing short term but if it lands you the job you want long term then it's as good as money in the bank. Finally, depending on location, you might consider doing some contracting - the lack of experience is a bit of a draw back but I know plenty of successful contractors who started out with less (just be realistic about earning potential until you get more experience), even during a downturn there's usually plenty of contract work (often more so, because companies look to get people in for short term projects rather than hiring permanent developers).

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266642)

If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just .NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn.

Why this? I've been around in the development scene for over a decade now, more or less, I've done PHP, Python etc, I've done MySQL, Postgres, I've done Linux, AIX, the various BSDs.

You know what I do these days in my "9 to 5"? .Net.

You know what I do these days in my own time, for my own projects? .Net.

According to you, that shows I do not have a genuine desire to learn. Why is that? What about .Net doesn't allow someone to have a genuine desire to learn? Do I have to continue to learn "other" stuff? Why?

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266700)

.Net is only a platform. Have you looked at F#? That's also something that can show you're looking beyond what you already know.

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266782)

And why doesn't my C#, VB.Net, WPF, WCF, ASP.Net and other stuff already show that?

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266732)

If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just .NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn. I would also add that, even while out of work, there are things you can involve yourself in to show potential employers that you weren't just bumming around.

That reminds me of something I forgot to add:

Don't reserve programming just for work, do it also fr play. Especially when unemployed. Join open source projects, for example. Write a blog on programming. These make excellent references.

Also join local user groups for your favourite languages. I don't know how it is in your area, but in my (pretty small) country, there's a user group for Groovy and Grails, there's one for Scala, there's groups for pretty much every other language out there, I presume, and there's a young but really cool cross-language group. They meet roughly every month or every two months, and those are great opportunities to learn more about your language, learn about new frameworks, learn stuff you never even knew existed, and learn about the strengths of other languages. And also to meet people, including potential business contacts and employers.

In programming, there are excellent ways to make a name for yourself.

Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... (1)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266886)

How much you willing to pay?

To the Cloud! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#34265960)

Sadly, the term means nothing if we're to believe MicroSoft.

If using a remote desktop application to watch pre-recorded video is considered cloud computing, then they must also classify single molecules of water vapor as "clouds" (or single droplets clouds, if you count routers).

Dilution of important terms like these into meaningless buzz-words is a shame.

Re:To the Cloud! (2, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266050)

Running a remote desktop session for a single app that could just as well have been installed locally is pretty much the definition of "cloud computing" according to Microsoft.

Re:To the Cloud! (2, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266056)

There is nothing to dilute. The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.

Re:To the Cloud! (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266448)

The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.

No, it's because it's abstracted, the details of which are irrelevant to the rest of the drawing as long as you accept that the "cloud" on the diagram performs its function.

Re:To the Cloud! (1)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266978)

So

cloud = somebody else's problem

But only those with experience are wanted. (5, Funny)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266074)

I bet experience is the key here. Only candidates with at least 8 years experience in managing cloud computing in a virtualised environment will be considered.

And don't forget to list your four years experience with administering Windows 7.

Re:But only those with experience are wanted. (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266096)

Of course, you should bringt your Ph.D. in computer science to the table as well. Oh, and if you're older than 24, you've got a lot of splainin' to do about how you wasted all that time.

We're a bit cynical, aren't we?

Re:But only those with experience are wanted. (2, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266158)

Very.

And referring to all those job ads asking for more years of experience in a certain tech than that the tech is around. This has been featured several times here.

Re:But only those with experience are wanted. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266590)

And referring to all those job ads asking for more years of experience in a certain tech than that the tech is around.

Well, how else are companies supposed to hire H1-Bs?

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266086)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

Re:How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Je (0, Offtopic)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266302)

If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race - mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights - I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

You have to be careful around parenthetical expressions. They're supposed to be minor asides or quasi-unrelated to the matter of the sentence. But sometimes, they are the most essential statements in it; revealing not only the true meaning of their parent sentence, but very often the context of the whole piece.

Re:How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Je (0, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266372)

I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

Why is this modded offtopic, surely he was talking about a zyklon cloud.

Mod me down, I deserve it. (0, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266394)

I always have a dark sense of humour, but I just realised that the above post goes beyond humour and could be really upsetting to people who's relatives were killed in the holocaust. I'm really sorry about posting this without thinking.

buzzward savvy (2, Insightful)

Sudheer_BV (1049540) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266298)

If you are in the web hosting business, you have to have the word cloud on your website. Otherwise customers think you are living in the stone age. Whether you actually offer cloud services doesn't matter. But using the buzzwords matter a lot nowadays.

Re:buzzward savvy (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266562)

Surely suggesting that your hosting service is cloud based when it's not is fraud, or am I missing something?

Re:buzzward savvy (1)

Sudheer_BV (1049540) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266868)

I'm talking about the mindset customers have developed.

And there's no agreed standard for the definition of cloud. Rackspace claims their services is cloud based. I don't agree to it. But there are people who believe Rackspace services are cloud based. So, just about anyone can claim their hosting service is cloud based. There's no way you can prove whether a service is cloud based or not. Cloud is a buzzword effectively used by marketing folks.

The demand is there, like it or not (5, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266340)

One very simple example: Do you have ever set up Google Apps for a domain, with email, contacts, calendar, Google sites and so on? Yeah, it's all in the cloud and all you have to do is clicking on buttons and filling out forms. Now go and look at some user trying to set this up. More likely than not he will get as far as configuring the MX-records and then he will cry for help.

All this cloud stuff seems to be so simple, but it very much isn't. And yes, this actually is nothing a real pro would like to bother with (you'll be fighting more with the UIs than anything else) but there is high demand for this, people think they can finally get away without someone who knows what he does, but they can't.

Most of this is in no way interesting or satisfying work but just fighting half-wit user interfaces. It's sometimes insulting, actually. Instead of really setting up things and controlling things you're hanging off someone else's setup and try to beat some sense out of it. It's often frustrating, you often will have to come to the conclusion that things you would like to do just can't be done because they're not offered and you can't do anything about that. But hey, it's just work.

Me? I'd rather setup a full server park from scratch with old PCs and Linux than fighting the "cloud", but guess what's in demand more. And yes, there's a whole army of trained monkeys out there, knowing every cloud service under the sun and with superhuman point-and-click abilities, but if you really know your job and also know about problems and limitations you can still easily make some money with this. Fun is this not, though. Fun is making things, not using things.

Re:The demand is there, like it or not (1)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266480)

Fun is this not, though. Fun is making things, not using things.

This. I recently started a job where management's decided to migrate as much as possible to the cloud. No in-house application is safe.

The smell of death is in the air. All of the developer-admin-types are gradually seeing their responsibilities degrade as the cool things they love doing are being replaced by having to fight the limitations of some web UI.

What's the endgame here? I won't be able to stay, I've worked too hard to see my skillset rust away while I fight some foggy battle with pretty but restrictive UIs. Spending the day opening tickets with a remote cloud company and trying to help troubleshoot their products over the phone is no way to live. Sooner or later, management will say "Why are we paying these people so much? All they do is open tickets and complain about the SLA!"

Cool story, bro, I know, but is anyone else living through this? Is there any escape?

Re:The demand is there, like it or not (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266572)

I agree generally with your sentiments, but I think your points are tangential to what the article is about. That said, here is one example [rootbsd.net] of a setup [standard "no affiliation" disclaimer goes here] that doesn't present any of the issues you describe.

Re:The demand is there, like it or not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#34266624)

Yep, the only reason setting up Google Apps is hard is because Google does not care about HMI at all. They just slap together interfaces based on what their code monkeys want to do and don't give any consideration to how people actually want and need to interact with their computers.

In general, computer interfaces are awful. I've yet to see one that is actually elegant, insightful, and intuitive.

Re:The demand is there, like it or not (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266674)

One very simple example: Do you have ever set up Google Apps for a domain, with email, contacts, calendar, Google sites and so on?

I have recently been trying to set up a small business using Google Apps infrastructure. I want to be able to work with people from around the world, so some sort of "cloud" infrastructure seemed like a good idea. The more I try to do, the more I'm convinced Google has no fucking idea about what people like me want from it. So, the cloudy sorts of things I want:

Email: great! (which is why I though google might be good in the first place)
Calenders: okay, no to-do lists
Contacts: disaster, no syncing to the mac address book for Google Apps accounts, doesn't support CardDAV
Documents: desktop option requires Google Apps pro, which charges per seat (no good, I want to be able to bring people in without having to worry about spiralling seat costs, but I would pay for usage!)
Storage: no option except for their formatted docs (useless), went with Amazon S3
Billing: nothing
Project Management: nothing

Integration between google services is shaky at best. It all feels horribly cobbled together. I've pretty much decided to give up on Google Apps for everything but email and calendering. Google sucks at the cloud. I wish they would concentrate more on protocols (CardDAV for a start), and less on web interfaces (yes I know they want you to use the web interface for ads, but I'd pay!).

Although I'm pretty tech savvy (for a non-pro), the thought of trying to set up all this stuff by myself makes my head hurt, and it's not my core business anyway.

Jobs (1)

JIKilo (1942278) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266640)

IT is one of the fastest growing job sector in the economy. There better be jobs or we are all doomed!

It is just a hype (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266712)

Cloud is a buzzword. And while it might be a good idea to add it to your resume, it will be gone in a few years. However, what will increase in the next decade or so are:
- Application services
- Platform services
- Virtual systems
All these services will be on demand. But this has different meanings in the different "cloud"-types. If you outsource your mail-service than this has to be available 24/7 the only thing which is variable is the system load. So the company providing email-services to you can do some load distribution if they have customers from different time zone (just for example).

However, outsourcing important information is always a problem. While you might outsource a shop system or a public relations website. You might not want to outsource accounting, engineering etc.

It can be interesting for private people. Because they want to use their data at home and when they are traveling. However, there is more a need in distributed computing and clever replication than storing all information in the net. Even though this might be a good idea for your email or music. It is still not such a good idea for your movies (that may change with more bandwidth).

Buzzword bingo (1)

Torvac (691504) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266790)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword_bingo [wikipedia.org] . one of the best games ever. went to some congress with a few guys and played it, it was legendary.

Lets use a global, everlasting variable for it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266878)

Say, "LatestBuzz".

when the employer sees this keyword in the resume, s/he should understand that whatever latest buzz is about at that time, the applicant, 'has it'.

that could save both the employer and the applicant a lot of time - the employer, from trying to determine expertise of the applicant in an area employer has no knowledge about, and the applicant from lying about it.

OMG, Not again (1)

jacobsm (661831) | more than 4 years ago | (#34266982)

The latest instance of management by magazine.

Cloudy (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267080)

I had no idea that just adding a word to your resume, without having any experience in what the word describes, actually qualifies you in that area! And silly me's been spending all this time actually working with the stuff on my resume... How foolish!

Buzzwords (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#34267108)

Marketing killed IT conferences years ago.

"We're an IT solutions provider. We help small to midsized companies leverage the same technology that larger companies have today by providing these technologies in a solutions package to scale."
"You sell small business servers."
"Yes."

Now people are lapping up "cloud."

"We're a Cloud Solutions provider. We enable small to midsized companies to leverage the power of cloud technology by moving data from dated technology into the more vast infrastructure of cloud computing."
"You're taking our servers away aren't you."
"Yes."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?