The problem isn't presently the age
or the resume.
With you, the resume would be a problem. But this might be a good thing.
As I've said elsewhere, I'd be pleased to obtain a junior tech position if it was a good match. But you're looking for specialists, aren't you?
I might be mistaken, but perhaps you're not familiar with how generalists operate. If this is the case, I'd prefer that you proceed to "circular file" my resume. It will save my time as well as yours.
Regarding the points that you've raised:
1) The website you've looked at isn't my professional site. The post went there, but the professional site is located at:
http://oldcoder.org/
Yes, I know that the professional site is sorely lacking in polish. I'll Twitter Bootstrap it sometime. :P
2) If somebody does not understand what it means to build a Linux distro from scratch, and feels that this is irrelevant to their firm, they are not looking for a generalist. Accordingly, I'm not a match for them and they're not a match for me.
As a side note, yes, over the past two decades, I've written literally hundreds of small servers and clients from scratch, plus a number of large ones.
Should all of the different servers and clients be listed on the resume? If so, would you look through the list, searching for some past project that matched some current need?
Do you understand what a generalist does?
3) I feel that this point is incorrect. You're thinking like a specialist here.
Nobody is going to hire me to work on DOS or AIX. Well, not AIX anyway; there is still some DOS work going on. But it's the range of things that I wish to convey here. Not the specialties.
If somebody such as yourself looks at my resume hoping to find a specialist, and dismisses the parts that illustrate a generalist background, it's best for all concerned, including me. that they toss the resume.
4) No idea what I'm talking about? :-) Heh. I maintain a fork of "sloccount".
First, it's about both code and documentation, not simply code. Or did I forget to note that? Regardless, I had a specific reason for mentioning the page count originally.
However, due to ongoing revisions, it may no longer make sense to include it. You may be correct about this point.
5) This point is confusing. You asked for more details but criticized the details for the Grumman job as "fluff".
The project included a Java GUI, Perl database code, network protocols implemented using multiple languages, a large OO Perl framework, the simulator that you mentioned, and numerous other components.
Which part is "fluff" ?
What I "did" was to design each component from scratch and implement it, except for the ones that I based on FOSS (which I then modified or extended).
Regarding the closing point, "Fix up your resume, and cleanup or hide your web presence, and you'll have a better chance":
It doesn't seem as though you've read much of the original post. You've commented on the resume and on the website where the post appears. You are not fond of either. It is your right to feel this way.
However, these two things are not presently the key issues. Nor were they the subject of the original post.
With you, the resume would be a problem. But this might be a good thing.
As I've said elsewhere, I'd be pleased to obtain a junior tech position if it was a good match. But you're looking for specialists, aren't you?
I might be mistaken, but perhaps you're not familiar with how generalists operate. If this is the case, I'd prefer that you proceed to "circular file" my resume. It will save my time as well as yours.
Regarding the points that you've raised:
1) The website you've looked at isn't my professional site. The post went there, but the professional site is located at:
http://oldcoder.org/
Yes, I know that the professional site is sorely lacking in polish. I'll Twitter Bootstrap it sometime. :P
2) If somebody does not understand what it means to build a Linux distro from scratch, and feels that this is irrelevant to their firm, they are not looking for a generalist. Accordingly, I'm not a match for them and they're not a match for me.
As a side note, yes, over the past two decades, I've written literally hundreds of small servers and clients from scratch, plus a number of large ones.
Should all of the different servers and clients be listed on the resume? If so, would you look through the list, searching for some past project that matched some current need?
Do you understand what a generalist does?
3) I feel that this point is incorrect. You're thinking like a specialist here.
Nobody is going to hire me to work on DOS or AIX. Well, not AIX anyway; there is still some DOS work going on. But it's the range of things that I wish to convey here. Not the specialties.
If somebody such as yourself looks at my resume hoping to find a specialist, and dismisses the parts that illustrate a generalist background, it's best for all concerned, including me. that they toss the resume.
4) No idea what I'm talking about? :-) Heh. I maintain a fork of "sloccount".
First, it's about both code and documentation, not simply code. Or did I forget to note that? Regardless, I had a specific reason for mentioning the page count originally.
However, due to ongoing revisions, it may no longer make sense to include it. You may be correct about this point.
5) This point is confusing. You asked for more details but criticized the details for the Grumman job as "fluff".
The project included a Java GUI, Perl database code, network protocols implemented using multiple languages, a large OO Perl framework, the simulator that you mentioned, and numerous other components.
Which part is "fluff" ?
What I "did" was to design each component from scratch and implement it, except for the ones that I based on FOSS (which I then modified or extended).
Regarding the closing point, "Fix up your resume, and cleanup or hide your web presence, and you'll have a better chance":
It doesn't seem as though you've read much of the original post. You've commented on the resume and on the website where the post appears. You are not fond of either. It is your right to feel this way.
However, these two things are not presently the key issues. Nor were they the subject of the original post.