What do you understand for "knowledge of Linux"?
 

Job posts where knowledge of Windows is required are often elaborated, explaining for example which version and which technologies you must know about. For instance, Windows 7/8, Server 2008/2012, Active Directory, IIS.

However, when I see an offer where knowledge of Linux is required, that's often a final sentence, not going further with the details.

So my question is, if I tell you that you have to have knowledge of Linux, what do you understand by that?

For example I think that someone who has knowledge of Linux, should know about the difference between deb and rpm, create/delete/edit users and groups, assign permissions, know the goal of each directory, know the difference between stable and rolling release, etc.

What are your thoughts?

Here's a starting point. Like all basic docs it is out of date but the categories are good.

http://www.tldp.org/LDP/sag/html/index.html

As above but including basic bash scripting and then depending on the role, apache, sendmail/postfix, mysql and a demonstration of knowledge of fundementals of tcp/ip networking.

We have a set of questions that we ask potential linux admin candidates but the standard of people applying is really low.

The vast majority we've come across think that because they can run ubuntu on a desktop and view a web page or use OpenOffice to edit a document it automatically makes them a viable candidate.

I see a lot of jobs postings like that. What they tell me is that the job is, essentially, a Windows admin position but they have a Linux system or two and that doesn't justify hiring a really sharp Linux admin. Those mentions of `some Linux knowledge' are often followed by `a plus'. What burns my toast are the jobs that scream `UNIX/Linux Administrator' with fairly basic UNIX admin tasks listed and then sneak in a long list of Windows-related technologies at the end of the `Skills' section. Like there's going to be a lot of top-notch UNIX/Linux admins out there with several years' experience with C#, .Net, and SQL Server.

Personally, I'd put any jobs that go into great detail about the Windows technologies but barely mention Linux experience into a `eh... maybe' pile and apply to those once I'd exhausted the jobs in `wow... looks great!' pile.

I assume you're engaged in a job search, so: Good luck!

--
Rick

This is why people like myself that have experience of both and are happy to recommend and work with both and not be an O/S jealot make a nice living. :) :)

None of this http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.gz scares you.

and you're just as flexible using either
C:\home\jj>
or
jj@MyKungFu:~$

No way to tell. Apply, go to the interview, and ask.

So you're the guy those ads are targetting. [heh heh] Good for you. I can scrape by in Windows administration but I'm definitely not the go-to guy when your Windows system has a hissy fit. I can, more often than not, Google my way out of a problem -- like last night's WinUpdate problem -- but I'd rather not make it my primary focus. Besides, there's almost certainly an MS-certifiable guy around who'd be able to fix the problem faster.

It's tough in many organizations to get that multi-OS experience. They've got the Wintel people in one box on the org chart, the UNIX people in another, network folks in a third, the storage folks in yet another, and all reporting to their own managers. And the people in one box aren't allowed to do tasks assigned to another box. (Not without starting a turf war, that is.) One place I was contracting had taken away all (Windows, UNIX, whatever) account management functions from the admins. It got to be laughable when I had to field questions from that team as to why they couldn't lock a Solaris account using a specific command. I looked at what they were trying to do and it turned out they were trying to use a Linux-specific command. Yeah they were the ``experts'' in user account management, all right. But I digress... :)

Later...

--
Rick

I agree that if you find the job interesting, or more correctly if you find the target company interesting, try to get in contact with the hiring manager. Either a phone discussion or an interview can give you a better understanding of what they're looking for. Many times the posting is not accurate of what they want. Can't recall how many times I've been called in for an interview and found out that the job was completely not the posting. I've even encountered that from the inside perspective. Got a call from a headhunter who knew where I was, asking if we were really looking for certain talents. They sent me the job description, which turned out to look a lot like the incorrect one that was used to get me in there years before. We were replacing a person who left and my boss informed HR that we wanted to do a posting, over time the HR guy got tired of waiting for my boss to get back to him, so he just re-posted the old job. We're not talking 180 degrees incorrect, but the listing of talents was not really accurate, so if someone was being literal, they'd not submit their self for the job. This sort of reminds me that my last few jobs were obtained not by responses to listing, but rather due to me sending my introductions and credentials to directors and VPs at companies I was interested in. Many times people are not posting for jobs. Many times they find someone who has experience or skills which they deem of worth, they'll find a way to bring that person into their company.

My advice for anyone starting out that wants to get into systems admin is to be totally OS agnostic. Sure there are plenty of linux jobs around, there are plenty of Microsoft jobs around, but why limit choices? Get certified in both, really, it does make you much more marketable.

To sum up the knowledge of a linux admin I always refer to the LPI List. https://www.lpi.org/linux-certifications Checkout the links of LPI-1 to LPI-3. This also gives some rough edges for level of knowledge and a position that suits.

A company that my wife used to work at evaluated a manager's performance, in part, on how long it was taking to fill open positions. The idea behind that was that leaving positions open for a long time was bad for team morale as they were having to take up the work load and getting stressed out. Open positions weren't open too long there. Nowadays companies are waiting (and waiting and waiting...) for just the right person to come along which is insane. I know of a local company that's had a spot open for over a year and that seems to be typical for them. In the past, management would likely tell the hiring manager ``Look... you've done without anyone on that position for so long you obviously don't really need anyone. We're taking away funding for that spot.''

That's probably happening (the not submitting) far more frequently than anyone knows. I recently read an article by a headhunter that said people probably shouldn't even waste their time applying for a job unless they have at least 95% of the skill/requirements listed in the ad. The reason being that the HR filtering software will probably toss out their application if they don't have that percentage of the required skills. Sad state of affairs.

Later folks...

In this very moment I'm applying for a job like that.. Requirements: Active Directory, Windows Server 2008/2012, Microsoft SQL Server, Networks and finally, Linux. Linux what? I really hate why they can't be a little more specific.