I agree in principle but it seems like his only way to go forward was to either lie about having direct experience with UNIX, or try to explain that POSIX is transferrable. I would have taken the latter route as well, reasoning that if it ended up costing me the job it would have been a big red flag anyway.

I used to interview at Google and I've dealt with entitled candidates, but this reads about as polite as I could expect without being a complete pushover.

I agree with your agreement in principle, but the real mistake was not simply adding Unix to the skills list to begin with, and keeping POSIX and Linux. It's not really a lie, and it's pretty obvious from the first email what's going on with this recruiter. Besides, if he's touched a Macbook, he's used UNIX in some form, because at least 7 versions of OSX have been certified as Unix [0].

I don't think I'd have thought of one ignorant recruiter out of a company of many thousands as a red flag. We have a great recruiter at my company, but I have no idea if he knows the difference between Unix, POSIX, and Linux, or if he knows OSX is a Unix (tm).

[0]: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/1489/is-mac-os-x-un...

I don't see a recruiter not knowing the particulars of POSIX/UNIX differences as the red flag (heck, I'm not even sure I could answer that question). The red flag to me is that the Kafkaesque exchange that followed, I suspect, is the product of the overall recruiting culture rather than a lone recruiter.

Oh, right, the "deleted Linux -> we need people with Linux experience" bit is pretty stupid. Still, I'd probably chalk that up to one ignorant recruiter and just put all those words on the résumé to satisfy them.

When I read this, I just assumed he could see what was going on and just didn't feel like playing the game. But it could be that he was thick. At the very least, no more thick than the HR person on the other end of the conversation.

Por examplo: I get the arguments that Stanley was a bit of a buffoon, but at the abstract level, the HR person lacked the pragmatism and interpersonal skills to identify a possible problem with a job description, and at the very least run it by the hiring manager if they were not allowed and/or comfortable adjusting the must-fit qualifications themselves.

I see a few people like this in every company and they most definitely hold up progress. Most of them get fired, rigidly filtering resumes by well-defined criteria isn't the only facet of being a recruiter. Working to help build teams is a mix of being assertive when its important and bridging the gap between what was said and what is desired, much like life. A failure to distinguish between the two types of situations is a pretty big flaw for anyone who will be working as part of a team.

"... technical understanding isn't the only facet of being a software developer."

True, but consider that some commenters might be commenting as end users of open source UNIX-like OS, not as salaried software developers.

In that case, there is nothing in this email exchange to suggest he could not be a valuable contributor to a UNIX-like project, paid or unpaid.

As an end user, I could care less whether developers are adept at dealing with recruiters (though I might sympathize them for the BS they must endure).

What I care about as an end user is whether they can write portable code.

Given that these companies are dedicated to selling web ads, it really makes me wonder how "progress" would be defined in your chosen context.

I am not sure that UNIX or Linux would even exist were it not for the type of person you are describing.

There is nothing wrong with having technical understanding or working elsewhere besides companies selling web ads. That is where true "progress" has come from in the past and I think it is likely to come from in future.

Just my opinion.

On the contrary, this was an obvious power play by the recruiter to get the candidate to agree and submit to whatever arbitrary KPI has been passed down by the HR manager, regardless of whether or not it's meaningful. I would not take anything away from this other than that the candidate was probably not a good fit for the position anyway, as they don't seem to gel well with the BS corporate politics. Some do, some don't.

> On the contrary, this was an obvious power play by the recruiter

This may seem obvious to you, but it's not to me. Why are you assuming malice on the part of the recruiter?

There is no malice, this is just what happens at big companies. When you have 10 layers of management, everyone is expected to fall in line because this is the only way it can work.

I work at one of those "big companies", what you're saying just isn't true. You'll find pockets of bad management, but that's far from "everybody is expected to fall in line".

FB haven't used external recruiters for some time now (they did in 2008). It's expected that internal recruiters be capable of understanding the skills they're looking for.

> I get the arguments that the HR recruiter was a bit off a buffoon, but at the abstract level, you lacked the pragmatism and interpersonal skills to brush through something that clearly isn't important seeing as you have the relevant skills.

Maybe that was the test all along :)

The guy lacketh 'hustle'. I agree.

It's a new-grad. They're generally not going to be masters of etiquette when facing social challenges.

It doesn't take a master of etiquette not to send a recruiter a 4-paragraph explanation of the finer points of POSIX v. UNIX. "I'm right and I'm going to explain to you exactly why whether it's relevant or not" is not generally a good attitude to have in the business world, even if you're working for Facebook.

That actually makes it more problematic. New grads trying to break into an industry should be especially respectful. If someone can't strategically avoid confrontation when the situation calls for it, that does not bode well for their ability to work in a team.

There are many new grads who are capable of appropriately dealing with social challenges. Those who can't have only themselves to blame.

True, but the recruiter on the other hand should show more experience and cognition. The emails might refer to systems the recruiter doesn't understand, but the actual words make complete sense.