Linux Foundation: Linux professionals have better paychecks

Linux Foundation, the non-profit organization devoted to promoting everything Linux, has release its “2012 Linux Jobs Report” about the job market for Linux professionals, admins and coders. People skilled with the open source OS are needed now more than ever, the report states, and their paychecks are better than the IT market average.

The Linux foundation – the same foundation that previously defined Windows as a beaten-up product, Microsoft “a puppy” and stated that enterprises truly love Linux – teamed up with Dice and surveyed more than 2.000 hiring managers. The survey result: 2012 is going to be a very good year for Linux experts in search of a new job opportunity.

The report states that 80% of recruiters plan to hire Linux professionals in 2012, and yet many said this kind of IT expert is very hard to find (85%). A common way to lure Linux experts is to make use of bonuses (18%) or offer additional stock options (8%). The study says that in 2011, the medium salary for Linux pros was $84,000 – a 5% increase compared to 2010 – and a $5,000 bonus on average.

Companies in search for Linux professionals in 2012 says they will rise up salaries (28%) and even offer flexible work schedules to lure new highly skilled workers. As for the more popular positions in the Linux job market, the Linux foundation/Dice study states developers are the most required professionals (67%) followed by system administrators (55%) and IT managers (20%).

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

HTC announces Ice Cream Sandwich updates for phones

Next Story

Messages won't be available to OS X Lion users after beta

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is one of the main reasons I (and I am sure many others) want to get into the Red Hat Certification Program as one of these certifications bascially makes you "wealthy". I want to do a Windows server one before this as I am a lot better prepared for it.

It makes sense that Linux admins would make more money as they are not as available as Windows and having less people + more overhead = more money.

Well smart business budgets more time for Linux, as it needs it, which a full time Salary position will always have the 'extra hours as needed' clause and be a few K higher.

And non-salary positions know they will get extra 'time' on the clock.


The industry would also like to thank Linux for helping with the massive drops in IT pay, as businesses were sold on 'free servers' and cheap labor to manage them.

Which is why everyone should also thank Linux for letting people make 5% more, at a job they should have been making 25% more at, and were 10 years ago.


Of course the servers weren't free, and the budgets didn't include the extra time for IT, so systems were left have messed up but running with IT people stretched to their limits for less pay, after the ones implementing the switch to Linux was fired.

I have seen so many clean up projects like this it is maddening.

I guess nobody learned from Germany's easy and free and excellent move to Linux... Oh wait, the costs were higher than anticipated, and it failed horribly because Linux is not a managed Server ecosystem.

Edited by thenetavenger, Feb 18 2012, 12:56am :

I'd say it's more politics than anything, or very good discounts as mentioned. It wouldn't have gone on for 6 years if it was THAT bad.

thenetavenger said,
Which is why everyone should also thank Linux for letting people make 5% more, at a job they should have been making 25% more at, and were 10 years ago.

You mean when most of the American companies moved their Windows development and support to India hence making your average IT worker make considerably less.

Problem is there's too many (and this applies to windows and mac too) 'inexperianced' coders and network managers, etc. that don't actually have a clue what they're doing. Loads of people say they're 'great' with coding/base OS stuff, heck I would say I'm pretty good with GNU/linux, but despite knowing how to do quite a bit, do some security improvements etc. would I consider myself able to secure a linux server well? No.

n_K said,
Problem is there's too many (and this applies to windows and mac too) 'inexperianced' coders and network managers, etc. that don't actually have a clue what they're doing. Loads of people say they're 'great' with coding/base OS stuff, heck I would say I'm pretty good with GNU/linux, but despite knowing how to do quite a bit, do some security improvements etc. would I consider myself able to secure a linux server well? No.

+1000

Seen an IT person last week at store I was just visiting a friend. They were there to install a new WiFi router and perform 'evaluations' on all the computer terminals. (Retail environment.)

They couldn't get the router to work, and when one of the employees asked him it was the wireless or the network connectivity that wasn't working, the IT person didn't know, but that it just didn't work and he had phone it in for additional help.

I was there again 6 hours later, and the IT person was still there, running 'evaluations' on the systems and telling a manager that all their systems failed the test. Which surprised the manager prompting more questions that eventually found out the IT 'Pro' had run the tools as a non-Admin user, which have to AD access to the information the tools were trying to collect.

The IT Pro was an 'old school' Unix guy, as in his 50s; however, using a Domain Admin login on Windows was too complicated.

Just the fact that the IT person was 'sent out' by the corporate IT people to do run 'evaluation' software on Windows AD clients was a good sign, his bosses don't know what they are doing either. With central tools and automated reporting available out of the box for free, even doing a remote desktop to the client systems would have seemed silly, but at least would have been better than sending people out all over a city.


In the IT world, there are so many automated tools and built in functionality that is not used in smaller and even some medium size deployments that reduce the IT workload tremendously.

Side Note...
IT people that complain about Windows Server environments as being hard, or lacking, are shooting themselves in the foot, as 'knowing' IT people will spot they don't have a freaking clue and not hire them, or find a replacement. Windows is the most advanced central management ecosystem, with enough tools to automated 99% of their job, and phone in the other 1%.

Windows Server environments aren't hard - they're just plain bad. Unstable, buggy, uncustomizeable. Anyone who has ever worked in a 2k/2k3 AD+Exchange+Share+SQL mixed environment knows what ****ing unimaginable **** pain it all is.

Also during my good 15+ years in the IT before I left it, I saw so many "Windows Admins" coming over, installing and configuring crap and then guess who was left to clean up the mess?

Yeah, you guessed that right - they had to call in the primarily Unix guy to clean up the mess the amateur consultant had done - and they were MS certified people too.

This is why OpenSource isn't always cheaper. It might run on cheaper hardware, etc... but sometimes the cost of getting people to deal with it...

ShiZZa said,
This is why OpenSource isn't always cheaper. It might run on cheaper hardware, etc... but sometimes the cost of getting people to deal with it...

This is really an invalid argument. The reduction in operating costs (licensing mainly) would more than make up for the increased salary in most organizations. These are the network admins, not end users.

If nothing else, the costs are a wash, and you have better, more knowledgeable admins. In the education industry, the smarter people I run into all have a Linux background, even if they run a Windows network. Most of the Windows admins need a lot more help and input from others.

It's also a supply and demand thing. Less Linux admins, equals more pay. Everyone things they can run a Windows network effectively, and a lot can't.

ShiZZa said,
This is why OpenSource isn't always cheaper. It might run on cheaper hardware, etc... but sometimes the cost of getting people to deal with it...

A quote from Grand Theft Auto comes to mind: ".. only 8%, which means less for god, and more for you!". In this case, it is less for MS and more for the Sys Admins. I for one, am all for that.

Edited by John S., Feb 18 2012, 5:17pm :