Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
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.
The argument that this isn't fair to many programmers has also been going on at least for the last 30 years. Fair or not, it helps a lot in convincing an employer you're worth hiring.
I like that idea. Part of the value from working on open source projects for companies is the public nature of your contributions: It's easy for you to take your commits to Chromium and show it to Facebook or Apple when looking for a job there.
Companies may not like that idea, however.
Perhaps, but it's a lot less than the cost of not having a probationary period and winding up stuck with a poor member of staff indefinitely because you couldn't do the impossible and spot every problem candidate during a momentary interview.
So what are you complaining about exactly? If you don't want to be judged by your own work, then there's no problem: that's your decision. If you do, but you refuse to let anyone see it, then you're creating your own problem, so you have no basis for complaint.
There is nothing "unfair" about this. Rather, you're given a choice about whether or not you want to participate and you have decided that you don't.
I do exhibit some of my smaller projects on github; my larger projects are not online because of competitive reasons.
His criteria don't (and shouldn't) apply to every SW hire, even though it's clear his message is "demonstrate > declare".
If the ability to demonstrate that they can write good code with concrete examples puts someone at an advantage over others, so be it.
Last time I heard git sucks on windows, svn is still extremly widely used (try writing a game with a large amount of binary assets and use git) and some of the old open source systems still use CVS.
This has made me extremely happy, and means that in the future I can point towards those patches that were posted as proof of work I have done.
"Any code, materials, designs, patents, design patterns or other such intellectual property ("IP") created by candidate is automatically and immediately assigned, irrevocably, to Employer upon its creation without further consideration."
The legality of this withstanding, I'm just letting you know, from experience, I've seen this approach in LOTS of contracts. I've learned the hard way that just because something is illegal or unenforceable doesn't mean that a company won't TRY to get away with it anyway. Often times, they do, because "the little guy" doesn't have over $100k to pay for an attorney.
Anyway, I'll shift my stance to lusis'. My eyes would pop out if I ever saw that in a contract offered to me.
As the ad in the in-flight magazine says (I think I remember right), you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.
The impact on your visibility, personal brand, and ability to find future roles should be a factor when you sign up for a job. Just as you'd consider your job title, for example.
If you're signing up for something you can't talk about or show off -- worse, if you're signing a contract that says you can't do anything that you _can_ talk about on the side -- then you'd better be sure you're getting paid extra, or in some other way getting compensated.
From what I've seen, working on super-secret trading software for Wall Street _does_ pay a lot more than working on an open source project, on average.
If the price is that you have to use references and other means to show future employers what you can do, then that's the tradeoff.
If you're not getting paid much, have no spare time, aren't allowed to code in your spare time, etc. then those are some items for the "cons" column that might nudge you to look for something new, all else equal...
Further, the disadvantage you refer to is natural.
that aside, a companies hiring process isnt designed to be fair, its designed to efficiently recruit the best talent.
Any particular reason?
That would be private code that's in Facebook. (I didn't work on Hive, Thrift or anything open source)