61–70 of 187 posts
> The bulls*t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give Can the title be updated with the other half of the sentence?
I assume they ran out of space in the title. Maybe it should be renamed to something more succinct, e.g. "Canonical's bulls*t Hiring Process"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An exchange from that thread: > > there is absolutely zero chance anyone on the other end is going to take the time to actually read and evaluate each of them > This is understandable to think, but is simply wrong -- I know because I'm a software engineer at Canonical who helps review these written submissions. They're sometimes read and reviewed by our CEO, though often he delegates that out to a pool of us reviewer…
If 80% are good submissions it’s a useless filter and should be dropped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tragic irony there though is that Canonical commits very little engineering effort to contributing to upstream projects that they don't control. They'll fix a few bugs that are affecting customers, but there's no generalised effort to grow the garden they live in.
Which is a huge difference from Red Hat, which contributes heavily and is very good at leveraging the resulting control of important projects to their advantage. It's why they keep out-maneuvering Canonical, as far as I can tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An exchange from that thread: > > there is absolutely zero chance anyone on the other end is going to take the time to actually read and evaluate each of them > This is understandable to think, but is simply wrong -- I know because I'm a software engineer at Canonical who helps review these written submissions. They're sometimes read and reviewed by our CEO, though often he delegates that out to a pool of us reviewer…
If 80% are good submissions it’s a useless filter and should be dropped.
In practice it's not like this though, it's probably true that I think part of it is it's just hard to figure out which 10% is the useful part. Though certainly if 80% are passing an early step in the process, it should just be scrapped altogether.
I noticed this last year when I applied for a software engineering job. For that position, the process is: - Initial screening (done) - Personal essay (this stage) - Standardized aptitude and personality tests - Meet and greet with an engineer - General interview(s) - Recruitment screen - Technical assessment - Role-specific interview(s) - Hiring manager interview - Senior leadership interview I highly doubt the init…
These are almost always extremely discriminatory when it comes to neurodiverse populations and I'm saddened that Canonical uses the equivalent of phrenology in its hiring process.
sigh
These are such inane questions. > What was your first Linux distribution, and why did you start there? "Red Hat Linux, and I started there because I found a CD to install it in the cover of Red Hat Linux For Dummies at my local library." What does that say about my qualifications for the job? I can scarcely imagine. Clearly the questions are prompting for answers that will be evaluated in some vague bullshit way, so…
It's a bit odd to be asked to write this out ahead of time though, because if when it comes up in the interview it's like you're being questioned by the police on a statement you had previously given them and being tested what you said. Weird.
It's not quite as much as Canonical, but it's still a _lot_ of writing to go through just to apply for a position. I considered applying there during my last job search but I just wasn't enthused about it enough to spend all that time writing before I even knew if they had any interest in me.
* What is the salary range?
* Who was the person coming up with the interview questions?
* What is that person's psychological profile?
* What is that person's biggest achievement since high school?
* Who are the people working in the team?
* What are those people's psychological profile?
* What're their education levels?
* What're their work experience?
* What're their biggest achievement since high school?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a huge difference from Red Hat, which contributes heavily and is very good at leveraging the resulting control of important projects to their advantage. It's why they keep out-maneuvering Canonical, as far as I can tell.
Redhat got bought out no?
I write that as someone who finds them to have astonishingly poor taste and wishes they would knock it off, so I'm no Red Hat fan—but they do seem to be succeeding at some kind of broader own-the-core-software-of-Linux-outside-the-kernel-without-technically-owning-it strategy, by steering Gnome and systemd and having significant control over a complete (and, conveniently, architected such that it causes a ton of work for everyone who doesn't just adopt Gnome) replacement of heart of the GUI stack. Not that Canonical's much better (OMG, Snaps, WTF are they thinking)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, that seems fair given that they are pretty community focused. You might view it as an unpaid internship, but my own contributions to open source and the community have always gotten me jobs. I view it as extracurricular activity... similar to what they pushed us to do in high school for getting into college.
Sure. But I have a full-time job and a family. Combined with the essay's focus on the candidate's high school career, it's a pretty strong signal I'm too old to work there. I'm sure as hell not going to spend a year of my precious spare time on the gamble it'll get me a job where they expect me to continue working off-hours.