When it comes to hiring, I'll take a Github commit log over a resume any day.

Think of all the good that could be done for the open source world if this led every company to expect open source contributions from their new hires.

Careers 2.0 probably isn't popular enough to change the world that significantly but it does make me want to hunt down someone for a profile invite (though I guess I should save those for people who are actively looking for jobs)

P.S. Careers 2.0 is hosted by Stackoverflow which means hosted on a .Net platform...just sayin'

This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects.

Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.

Look, I work on a lot of proprietary stuff as well, but even if Github didn't exist, we'd both be subject to the same "unfairness." Here's a job interview, circa 1981:

Candidate 1: "I brought this fanfold printout of the source code for _____ I wrote with me, have a look.

Candidate 2: "I can't show you any of the code, but trust me, it's good."

Github merely drags that conversation forward from 1981 up to 2011. When you and I choose to write code that is locked away in somebody else's vault, we ought to charge extra to compensate for the fact that we might as well have been surfing Oahu.

But those that have fun writing code usually do, or have done so at some point. It's some kind of filter, that's true, and there isn't any filter that's always fair.