Slashdot Mirror
Do F/OSS Contributions Make You More Marketable?
Bucking for a Raise asks: "Assuming that Free/Open Source contributions qualify as 'experience' in a professional sense, it would seem to follow that contributing would make one more marketable as an employee or contractor. Personally, I feel that I've gained invaluable experience from my contributions. However, I'm curious to know what other Slashdot readers have experienced: do potential employers/clients feel that it increases your worth? Does it depend on the visibility or perceived value of the project to which you contribute? Do the employers/clients you've seen place any value in, or even know about, F/OSS?"
Basically it's a modification of this document.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm applying for IBM's Extreme Blue internship this summer (gotten past the first two interviews, hope to take the IPATO test tomorrow or something). If you've done something notable for an open source project of some sort, you get major props towards them accepting you.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Part of the class requires that your work gets accepted into the projects codebase before you get credit.
If someone took and passed a course like this, I would save that resume.
Getting your new work accepted into the code base means you have to demonstrate
- technical excellence, code proficiency that all the key decision makers approve of
- people skills, so you don't piss off the existing code repository mavens.
I've seen the tragedy of technically proficient people having their contributions end up on the floor in scrap heap because they effectively have an attitude of "Fuck you if you don't appreciate my brilliance."Likewise, personable people with no technical proficiency can open doors, but have nothing real to bring to the table.
Someone with both skills is valuable.
"Provided by the management for your protection."