On Hiring Developers(github.com)
github.com
On Hiring Developers
https://github.com/rziehl/from_the_terminal/blob/master/posts/005_on_hiring_developers.md
17 comments
I think you're misconstruing what the author has said, as he does not appear to have "hostility to the open source movement", as he has several open sourced projects on his github.
Did he express discontent with a specific type of advocate? Yes. But he explained why, so it should be something you could understand by reading what he expressed.
He basically shares the same view as you: if you don't want to share your code, then it should be totally fine. There are people who do not agree with this, and this is where he draws a distinction.
Did he express discontent with a specific type of advocate? Yes. But he explained why, so it should be something you could understand by reading what he expressed.
He basically shares the same view as you: if you don't want to share your code, then it should be totally fine. There are people who do not agree with this, and this is where he draws a distinction.
I agree with the OP's statement that if you didn't contribute to the code (and you didn't pay for it, etc), you shouldn't have a say in whether or not the software is open-sourced.
However, I think that unless the programmer has a good reason not to open source something, they should default to releasing it. I have a couple reasons for this.
One, it's impossible to predict what other programmers will or will not find useful. I have lots of code on GitHub that is not in any sense production ready. I don't care -- maybe someone will find it helpful.
Two, as I said in my previous comment, whether we want to admit it or not, we're all using and benefiting from open source software all the time. GitHub -- the site we're arguing over -- would never have been possible without Git. I feel indebted to the people who came before me and made all this possible, and I don't understand people who react to the subtle pressures to contribute with hostility.
The person at the bottom of this comment list said "I have about 6-7 repos in GitHub...all private. I will never give that out in a link. I don't mind you looking at it in front of me, but I'm not giving anyone access to it." I just totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not diminishing you by reading your code. And, as the last 30 years of blazing success in open source software has shown, the benefits of the open-source ecosystem are far from abstract. They're the foundation of everything we do.
However, I think that unless the programmer has a good reason not to open source something, they should default to releasing it. I have a couple reasons for this.
One, it's impossible to predict what other programmers will or will not find useful. I have lots of code on GitHub that is not in any sense production ready. I don't care -- maybe someone will find it helpful.
Two, as I said in my previous comment, whether we want to admit it or not, we're all using and benefiting from open source software all the time. GitHub -- the site we're arguing over -- would never have been possible without Git. I feel indebted to the people who came before me and made all this possible, and I don't understand people who react to the subtle pressures to contribute with hostility.
The person at the bottom of this comment list said "I have about 6-7 repos in GitHub...all private. I will never give that out in a link. I don't mind you looking at it in front of me, but I'm not giving anyone access to it." I just totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not diminishing you by reading your code. And, as the last 30 years of blazing success in open source software has shown, the benefits of the open-source ecosystem are far from abstract. They're the foundation of everything we do.
>I just totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not diminishing you by reading your code.
I think the argument goes:
Then why is any code proprietary? If I'm interviewing at a company, I should be able to see that company's code prior to working there.
I also think a general issue is that practices such as this and employment agreements where the company owns any work you do off hours make it harder for people to jump from being employees to working for themselves (both in mindset and in practical ways).
I think the argument goes:
Then why is any code proprietary? If I'm interviewing at a company, I should be able to see that company's code prior to working there.
I also think a general issue is that practices such as this and employment agreements where the company owns any work you do off hours make it harder for people to jump from being employees to working for themselves (both in mindset and in practical ways).
Please see my response to @datalus below which addresses my thoughts on when I open source code.
Agreed, we all benefit from open source, I think it's almost impossible to avoid an open source tool at some point in your career now as a developer. I love Git and have a lot of respect for Github as a company. My intentions in my post was to address how people misuse such great platforms potentially.
Also, please see my response to @mafro below which addresses your final point.
Agreed, we all benefit from open source, I think it's almost impossible to avoid an open source tool at some point in your career now as a developer. I love Git and have a lot of respect for Github as a company. My intentions in my post was to address how people misuse such great platforms potentially.
Also, please see my response to @mafro below which addresses your final point.
"I just totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not diminishing you by reading your code. And, as the last 30 years of blazing success in open source software has shown, the benefits of the open-source ecosystem are far from abstract. They're the foundation of everything we do."
Code is money. Some people are developing products not just frameworks. Some people are paid for developing open-source stuff while others do this as a hobby. It's a personal choice. Open-source is not the only way and it's not the best. There is still no open-source project that would match Photoshop, Windows, MS Office in quality.
Code is money. Some people are developing products not just frameworks. Some people are paid for developing open-source stuff while others do this as a hobby. It's a personal choice. Open-source is not the only way and it's not the best. There is still no open-source project that would match Photoshop, Windows, MS Office in quality.
+1
TheCowboy summarized my intentions well. I have no hostility towards open source. I know what you mean when someone stars or forks a repository. I created a boilerplate project for Sinatra applications (a Ruby micro web framework) a few years ago and forgot about it, although now 20+ people are using it. Since then my Ruby has improved greatly and I want to give them something more so I am working on a version two of that boilerplate project for them. This is how I'm using Github, to try share my knowledge (what little I have compared to some). If you choose to use my Github as a job application requirement, understand your intentions and my intentions are very different thus exposing the flaw in how recruiters use the tool.
I had someone comment on my Github commit for the blog post itself and I'll copy it here so you can see my response: https://github.com/rziehl/from_the_terminal/commit/497939af2....
I have nothing against any tool or belief, just the misuse of that tool or belief.
I had someone comment on my Github commit for the blog post itself and I'll copy it here so you can see my response: https://github.com/rziehl/from_the_terminal/commit/497939af2....
I have nothing against any tool or belief, just the misuse of that tool or belief.
I suppose my github page is resume worthy filler, but honestly, I use it to track code for me.
I use gist as a backend store for a fairly large code snippet database and my github page essentially helps me peruse that quickly.
And I also get a thrill when I see someone has forked/starred a repo or gist.
I use gist as a backend store for a fairly large code snippet database and my github page essentially helps me peruse that quickly.
And I also get a thrill when I see someone has forked/starred a repo or gist.
+1
Personally I hear "someday it will turn into a project" all the time. More times than not it never does.
Nonetheless,
I'm actually ok if someone doesn't have an extensive github (or any for that matter) on an interview, because I will spend the time and talk with them. I totally understand however that more or less many firms try to filter out some of the mass piles of resumes by using github. But most people aren't like me who want to dig in and _work_ with `you`.
Having said that I very much still like to see a github link. Here is why (and they are biased toward synergy in a coop manner, which is how I culturally work; you may be different):
- You spent the time to do something you thought was cool (dedication) - You did the above regardless of how it looked which amongst many things to me means you have thick skin and are willing to learn (it's a two way street mind you). - you've learned to communicate with other developers => _on their terms_ - you are not living in a cave and open source doesn't come to you from only one foss org or your one fav info site. - you are willing to dive into code (forking) and making the changes necessary even if it means doing it yourself - good ole adding to the knowledge of society (you just don't do it for the money, you have more than one dimension which drives you)
At least these are my opinions and I hope that at least you might be able to see one take of many on why some might want to see a github link.
Btw, If anyone else feels the same way, feel free to ping me! Always nice to meet other devs that share some of my views!
Nonetheless,
I'm actually ok if someone doesn't have an extensive github (or any for that matter) on an interview, because I will spend the time and talk with them. I totally understand however that more or less many firms try to filter out some of the mass piles of resumes by using github. But most people aren't like me who want to dig in and _work_ with `you`.
Having said that I very much still like to see a github link. Here is why (and they are biased toward synergy in a coop manner, which is how I culturally work; you may be different):
- You spent the time to do something you thought was cool (dedication) - You did the above regardless of how it looked which amongst many things to me means you have thick skin and are willing to learn (it's a two way street mind you). - you've learned to communicate with other developers => _on their terms_ - you are not living in a cave and open source doesn't come to you from only one foss org or your one fav info site. - you are willing to dive into code (forking) and making the changes necessary even if it means doing it yourself - good ole adding to the knowledge of society (you just don't do it for the money, you have more than one dimension which drives you)
At least these are my opinions and I hope that at least you might be able to see one take of many on why some might want to see a github link.
Btw, If anyone else feels the same way, feel free to ping me! Always nice to meet other devs that share some of my views!
Yes, a GitHub profile is not perfect. It's way better than nothing - you get to see the developer's coding style, commenting approach and overall code organization. You say it's not your best work? then put something you're proud of on there before you send your resume. If you don't have one project that you think is representative of your current skill, you have to understand that is problematic for potential employers. Don't want to share it on GitHub? that's fine, send code examples instead of a GitHub link. But you can't hire a developer without reviewing some of his/her code first.
Personally, I find a Stack Overflow profile to be the best indicator of a developers skill, if he has a somewhat active profile (over 2-3k points). Being able to explain technical solutions, I think, is the best way to see if someone is both capable and can work in a team
Regarding resumes - another touchy matter. When I freelanced I haven't sent a resume as such as I had a portfolio site, but now that I'm on the other side of the table, going over resumes - most of them are completely terrible. Some people are completely clueless on what to put on a resume and others try to game it - putting stuff like "raised x metric by y% on project z" - giving me zero clue to what they actually did there. It's very rare I can get an actual glimpse to what the person was doing at his previous work. That's why you'll need to tell them your story when you interview... it's too easy to assume the interviewer was just lazy going over your resume because you think you "nailed" it, but in truth your resume probably sucks as an indicator of your actual experience and ability.
Personally, I find a Stack Overflow profile to be the best indicator of a developers skill, if he has a somewhat active profile (over 2-3k points). Being able to explain technical solutions, I think, is the best way to see if someone is both capable and can work in a team
Regarding resumes - another touchy matter. When I freelanced I haven't sent a resume as such as I had a portfolio site, but now that I'm on the other side of the table, going over resumes - most of them are completely terrible. Some people are completely clueless on what to put on a resume and others try to game it - putting stuff like "raised x metric by y% on project z" - giving me zero clue to what they actually did there. It's very rare I can get an actual glimpse to what the person was doing at his previous work. That's why you'll need to tell them your story when you interview... it's too easy to assume the interviewer was just lazy going over your resume because you think you "nailed" it, but in truth your resume probably sucks as an indicator of your actual experience and ability.
I have seen more than one great developer with SO score < 1000. Some people like to code rather than browsing SO.
Exactly, StackOverflow scores and even upvotes on Hacker News or Reddit is a neat metric, but in the same sense that commits pushed or lines of code written are. They hold some value but they are by no means determine quality or the value of a person's contributions.
Like I said - it's an indicator, not a requirement.
At least when recruiting offshore, github has been a great filter. People who have github usually end up sharing a bunch of characteristics: they enjoy coding, they know more api integrations, they are continuously improving.
I'll add the general caveat that it obviously doesn't apply to every GitHub member but to many. And that is just fine when you have a huge pool of candidates and you need a decent filter for the upstream.
I'll add the general caveat that it obviously doesn't apply to every GitHub member but to many. And that is just fine when you have a huge pool of candidates and you need a decent filter for the upstream.
The fundamental problem with Github profiles is that they are easily gamed. Once it becomes common practice, everyone will have a Github account with lots of code -- and I suspect a lot they didn't write.
As much as Fizzbuzz (or equivalents) are despised, I think it is still probably a more useful first-level filters. But not much more.
As much as Fizzbuzz (or equivalents) are despised, I think it is still probably a more useful first-level filters. But not much more.
The problem with that, is that the depth of github is pretty hard to fake. Sure, you can have repos with code in them, but the time of day you commit, what your commits look like, how you work, is well documented.
I think that is the author's point though: he has a lots of private repos on bitbucket that he doesn't want to share. The work history and depth of his code and such is not publicized.
Note also that this is the same for private repos hosted on github. When you are logged in, you can see the activity and commits of yourself (and your teammates) in all of the public+private repos that you have access to, but your public profile only shows public commits. This is by design.
Here is my example image, when I was doing a bunch of work at the start of the year in some private repos: http://imgur.com/4Tr3LQz The top is my public activity and the bottom one is my public+private activity. So if you're used to working out of private repos, then nothing is publicly documented and your actual github profile is not very 'deep'.
Note also that this is the same for private repos hosted on github. When you are logged in, you can see the activity and commits of yourself (and your teammates) in all of the public+private repos that you have access to, but your public profile only shows public commits. This is by design.
Here is my example image, when I was doing a bunch of work at the start of the year in some private repos: http://imgur.com/4Tr3LQz The top is my public activity and the bottom one is my public+private activity. So if you're used to working out of private repos, then nothing is publicly documented and your actual github profile is not very 'deep'.
My point was, you can't just fake it because development history looks very different than 'copy and pasted code in' history.
All of that is true, but my point is that you can't just gin up fake repositories to look good on a resume.
All of that is true, but my point is that you can't just gin up fake repositories to look good on a resume.
You've just given me an idea for a project.
That assume everyone works the same way on Github. The code I host on Github for me is old code. So I have big commits and then long lulls. As noted by the author, a lot of people don't use it as their primary repository.
I didn't read this as the author opposing any use of github in hiring. I read it as a warning to keep companies from over-emphasizing something that has flaws and can be gamed.
People should think about why exactly they are requiring applicants have a github and make sure they aren't getting lazy about who they let through their hiring filters and who they exclude. It can be especially problematic when you have less technically savvy people involved with hiring process.
Anyone reading HN over the years can probably agree that there have been many bad ideas that have caught on over the years, such as throwing gotcha brainteasers at applicants. There are also good ideas that have been misapplied.
People should think about why exactly they are requiring applicants have a github and make sure they aren't getting lazy about who they let through their hiring filters and who they exclude. It can be especially problematic when you have less technically savvy people involved with hiring process.
Anyone reading HN over the years can probably agree that there have been many bad ideas that have caught on over the years, such as throwing gotcha brainteasers at applicants. There are also good ideas that have been misapplied.
You sir understood my point of view perfectly. I am not opposed to Github or any tool for that matter, only the misuse of that tool.
If I'm hiring, I want to see some code. I will need time to browse and read a candidate's code - which is where Github comes in. Also GH gives us their comments, pull requests & community interactions, which as others have said is invaluable.
Github, Bitbucket, Google code, Sourceforge (even Stackoverflow!) - it doesn't really matter where. It just needs to be public.
The OP's comments about Stallman and "Free software fanatics" are way off the mark; technical hiring staff just want to see your code. Fizz Buzz be damned! The code cannot lie!
And if your precious projects are too secret and awesome to be seen, then I very much doubt I'll hire :)
Github, Bitbucket, Google code, Sourceforge (even Stackoverflow!) - it doesn't really matter where. It just needs to be public.
The OP's comments about Stallman and "Free software fanatics" are way off the mark; technical hiring staff just want to see your code. Fizz Buzz be damned! The code cannot lie!
And if your precious projects are too secret and awesome to be seen, then I very much doubt I'll hire :)
This is basically what I wanted to write.
In addition, I'm not a huge fan of linkedin either. There are no guarantees to it. One is that most of what's on there is hard to check and linkedin endorsements are just unreal to start with.
I know people who just endorse each other for random things. I have endorsements from people who I have never worked with for technologies I have never worked with.
So in the end — Github or similar wins. Allows me to see their code (and contributions), and that's what matters. For the rest (compatibility on a social level), there are interviews and probation.
In addition, I'm not a huge fan of linkedin either. There are no guarantees to it. One is that most of what's on there is hard to check and linkedin endorsements are just unreal to start with.
I know people who just endorse each other for random things. I have endorsements from people who I have never worked with for technologies I have never worked with.
So in the end — Github or similar wins. Allows me to see their code (and contributions), and that's what matters. For the rest (compatibility on a social level), there are interviews and probation.
Created a second account because HN says I was submitting too fast (no wonder there are no interesting AMAs on here).
I am all for a generic "Link to your code" field on a job application form but also provide an alternative like "Is your code not public? Send us an invite to your repository or send us a zip of some work that you are proud of". I am okay with that, I did this for a job application that required a Codility test which I didn't do. I am not saying that I am unwilling to give you my code, but for the sake of a job application it does not have to be open to the world. I agree that Github still has benefits for recruiters but they should not become blinded by it thinking it is the only platform where developers can showcase their code.
I am all for a generic "Link to your code" field on a job application form but also provide an alternative like "Is your code not public? Send us an invite to your repository or send us a zip of some work that you are proud of". I am okay with that, I did this for a job application that required a Codility test which I didn't do. I am not saying that I am unwilling to give you my code, but for the sake of a job application it does not have to be open to the world. I agree that Github still has benefits for recruiters but they should not become blinded by it thinking it is the only platform where developers can showcase their code.
Occasionally, I put some code on Github that I consider to be more useful when open than closed. Other times, I create a small project just to share useful programming information along with a few coding examples that someone can clone if they wish.
There's a lot of code I could put up, but I don't consider it to be as useful to anyone else in the current form that it is in (tailored more for specific projects with dependencies that may not be useful to everyone). Other times, certain clients I work for may not like it because it's code I also wrote for them with the understanding it was proprietary for their own use (websites). Sometimes I may also write code for other developers or (indirectly) for their employer and posting it without their consent would make things complicated.
There's a lot of code I could put up, but I don't consider it to be as useful to anyone else in the current form that it is in (tailored more for specific projects with dependencies that may not be useful to everyone). Other times, certain clients I work for may not like it because it's code I also wrote for them with the understanding it was proprietary for their own use (websites). Sometimes I may also write code for other developers or (indirectly) for their employer and posting it without their consent would make things complicated.
This is one topic I didn't touch on that I would have liked to but my post would have been even longer and it's already a fairly long read. I have another post planned that addresses this. Over the last year or so I gave a lot to employers and stopped coding things I enjoyed coding for fun. My Github profile probably makes it seem that I don't work hard because of this. For some weird reason though, I have worked on some open source projects on Github yet it doesn't say I contributed to them but you'll find my commits in the history on master.
[deleted]
What companies actually require people to have a GitHub and LinkedIn to apply? I've been doing recruiting for about a year and a half, and I've never seen this be a hard and fast prerequisite.
I guess I could see a situation where the HR machine makes you fill out some stupid form when you apply to a company (in the same way that this HR machine makes you upload your resume in a certain format), but I'd be very surprised if those rules and requirements come from hiring managers.
It makes sense to want 1) a concise way to see where you've been working, what you've been doing, and what you write like (presumably this is the LinkedIn portion) and 2) code samples, but it doesn't make sense to require that this info comes to you in a specific medium.
I guess I could see a situation where the HR machine makes you fill out some stupid form when you apply to a company (in the same way that this HR machine makes you upload your resume in a certain format), but I'd be very surprised if those rules and requirements come from hiring managers.
It makes sense to want 1) a concise way to see where you've been working, what you've been doing, and what you write like (presumably this is the LinkedIn portion) and 2) code samples, but it doesn't make sense to require that this info comes to you in a specific medium.
Actual author here. Wrote this post last night to express my thoughts on hiring trends I've noticed but mostly to thank a friend of mine, went to bed, woke up to a bunch of tweets and one of my other friends said my post was on Hacker News. I have read everyone's comments and will try to answer as many of them as possible. Thanks for all the feedback everyone, no matter how positive or negative. It's interesting reading all of your perspectives. This made my day!
I have about 6-7 repos in GitHub...all private. I will never give that out in a link. I don't mind you looking at it in front of me, but I'm not giving anyone access to it. And since all that code is sitting on my laptop, it's easier to let me plug my laptop to your widescreen and let's talk code.
For my first developer position, I actually went into the interview with my own laptop and showed the two developers some of my projects written in DarkBasic. They could see the code if they wanted to but I haven't released that code anywhere. The demos were very visual which was a great hook in an interview, I highly recommend that people take their closed source projects to interviews just to demonstrate what they are capable of.
Github - definitely
LinkedIn - never. Circle jerking recommendations and filling your profile up with buzzwords.
LinkedIn - never. Circle jerking recommendations and filling your profile up with buzzwords.
Regarding LinkedIn, I am seeing selective-career-history-wiping happening more everyday: http://mobocube.com/post/5312332640/did-your-prospective-hir...
Interesting, I don't think I would ever tamper with my employment history. If I got asked why I am not at a company anymore I would be honest.
[deleted]
Are there free software armies forcing people to put everything in GPL? Is Stallman something like Hitler? From first few paragraphs I thought he's trying to draw that picture.
I'd suggest re-reading those first few paragraphs. It sounds like you're a bit twitchy and "ready for a fight" when, in fact, OP did not in any way give the impression you mention.
Not saying Stallman is like Hitler but I honestly find his views such as "everything should be free (as in speech)" very hypocritical. At a conference I attended he also stated "artists and musicians should not expect money for their work" which I find is again very arrogant. Those pursuits also require effort and those people can determine how much they value what they create. I still think Stallman has provided a ton of value to the community, I just disagree with some of his views. He is still a good person.
You started it as "On hiring developers" and quickly went on to a discussion about Stallman's views. Also from what I've understood you are not just criticizing Stallman's "request" to give back to the community but whole idea of sharing code.
You are free to criticize anyone or anything but the Stallman part really did look like going off on a tangent.
It's really easy to be an ass on the internet but I'm not attacking you or anything (Like one commenter probably thought I am). Just pointing out what I noticed.
You are free to criticize anyone or anything but the Stallman part really did look like going off on a tangent.
It's really easy to be an ass on the internet but I'm not attacking you or anything (Like one commenter probably thought I am). Just pointing out what I noticed.
No worries, no offence taken at all. I welcome all constructive criticism, more so than positive feedback so thanks!
I know it was a tangent from the initial impression readers got from the title but it served as an analogy that people can blindly misuse beliefs just like they can blindly misuse tools. I am not a fan of name dropping and in that given example I admit I could have avoided mentioning Stallman looking back at the post and generalized it to free software advocates who try force their beliefs on others. Also want to add that I do not think all free software advocates force their beliefs on other developers.
Criticism appreciated, like I said, no offence taken, I did not think you were attacking me.
I know it was a tangent from the initial impression readers got from the title but it served as an analogy that people can blindly misuse beliefs just like they can blindly misuse tools. I am not a fan of name dropping and in that given example I admit I could have avoided mentioning Stallman looking back at the post and generalized it to free software advocates who try force their beliefs on others. Also want to add that I do not think all free software advocates force their beliefs on other developers.
Criticism appreciated, like I said, no offence taken, I did not think you were attacking me.
Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them (see comment guidelines). Discussing Stallman and his opinion regarding culture is just treading the same old ground that has been done before.
As mentioned already in this thread, in my initial comment on this thread in fact, I had no idea this post was even going to end up on HackerNews. I write independently without Hacker News in mind. I write for myself. Why would I have read the comment guidelines on Hacker News before writing a blog post that I had no intention of putting up on Hacker News in the first place?
@chanux asked a question with regards to my blog post and I answered it with my justified opinion. It was hardly a mindless flamewar, in fact both of us ended up agreeing with each other as you can see by the comments and this tweet if you want further proof: https://twitter.com/chanux/status/366211657241862145. I was not going to ignore a user who had a question about my blog post.
I appreciate the Hacker News community's feedback and contributions but I do not feel that in this specific example I created an unhealthy discussion by mentioning Stallman. I have a lot of respect for his work as already stated and I accepted @chanux's constructive criticism wholeheartedly.
@chanux asked a question with regards to my blog post and I answered it with my justified opinion. It was hardly a mindless flamewar, in fact both of us ended up agreeing with each other as you can see by the comments and this tweet if you want further proof: https://twitter.com/chanux/status/366211657241862145. I was not going to ignore a user who had a question about my blog post.
I appreciate the Hacker News community's feedback and contributions but I do not feel that in this specific example I created an unhealthy discussion by mentioning Stallman. I have a lot of respect for his work as already stated and I accepted @chanux's constructive criticism wholeheartedly.
"It seems all developer positions these days require the following:
1) A link to your Github account 2) A link to your LinkedIn profile"
1) No 2) No
1) A link to your Github account 2) A link to your LinkedIn profile"
1) No 2) No
"What Vim or Emacs plugins are they using to improve their process? Do they pop out of their text editor and type rdoc or pydoc into their shell? Do they fire up an interactive REPL with irb or python? ... asking them how many windows there are in San Francisco."
They don't care about Vim and Emacs, they are not Python devs and they don't live in SF (talking about the other 90% of devs naturally).
They don't care about Vim and Emacs, they are not Python devs and they don't live in SF (talking about the other 90% of devs naturally).
That was just an example in my post. I used to do a lot of C programming in my spare time. My commonly used tools back then included splint, valgrind, gdb and man. Like I said, developers will find similar tools when the language they are coding in changes.
"I know why companies have bought into the idea of Github profiles." - is it some sort of SF-cisco thing? It's not common in UK/Europe at all.
It seems to be a growing trend with the Valley startups but I have noticed some other companies on the East coast adopting the pattern. I can't really comment on the UK/Europe, I am based in Canada myself. Are there any sites that UK/European companies use instead of LinkedIn and Github? I'm genuinely curious.
It's getting more so. Last time I was looking for a job (UK) a recruiter not only mentioned my github, but asked me to pass on another job offer to someone he'd noticed I was collaborating with.
Oh wow, that's pretty interesting. Was the recruiter from a small company just trying to aggressively go after candidates or were they legitimately interested in you project? Not to undermine your work at all but it's the first time I have heard of an experience like this. Congrats!
Big recruitment agency. I think he'd heard the name of that specific guy rather than caring about what we'd actually been working on.
Pushing utility code and nice succinct tools would be a good use of GitHub if you're afraid of people stealing your precious million dollar ideas.
I fully support this. If it's not your secret sauce then why not give it to the community? The common rebuttal I hear for this is "but we have to then maintain it". Granted, maintenance is time consuming but even if you do not do anything after open sourcing it, someone could still fork it and tailor it to suit their needs. I don't open source something if I am on the fence about whether what I have coded is a tool or a potential product. I also don't open source something if it's really untidy, I try to do a bit for the community before putting it out there like making sure it runs on Heroku for example (if it's a web app let's say) and that it is somewhat readable. Not saying my current work on my Github is perfect but I am always learning.
Personally, I've made far more open source contributions at my current (awesome) job than I ever did while on the job market. I use GitHub because it makes coding more fun, and because I get a huge thrill every time someone tells me they used one of my projects.
I also don't understand the OP's hostility to the open source movement. If you don't want to share your code, then don't share it! That's totally fine. But I'm very conscious of the fact that almost all the tools I use every day -- Linux, tmux, vim, Ruby, Python, etc, not to mention hundreds of libraries and plugins -- were all developed by people in the open source community. Often these people were working for free or for far below-market wages. Whether or not OP likes the OSS movement, modern software development is built on open source tools. Personally, I feel an obligation to try to give something back, even if it's something as small as a REST API wrapper.