Bad name vs no name companies
Just occurred to me - should be relevant on Blind, where so many are preoccupied with "prestige" of the company, whatever that means - that some relatively big names are actually worse on your resume, than noname companies. Example: Cisco, IBM, Oracle. I wonder about VMware - and inclined to include it into the same list, as a stain on your resume.
What does VMware even do these days? Isn’t their product done?
Also wonder about Apple....
Technically it matters more what you are doing then who you work for. Working for a shitter company may actually be better for your skills because you may deal with harder situations. But I agree the industry is bias by names of companies (even myself)
“Working for a shitter company may actually be better for your skills because you may deal with harder situations.” Found a mature adult on Blind. Rare!
Thoughts on Salesforce?
Low Tier 2/High Tier 3
Oracle on my resume stinked even it only lasted 10month. Cisco though I have many samples from my current coworker proves the same. They all suck.
How do you know Oracle was the cause of your problems though?
He A/B tested two copies of the resume - one with an unexplained gap in employment and one with Oracle. The one with the employment gap had a better conversion rate.
Okay Oracle is not as bad as Cisco. And Cisco is nowhere near as shit tier bad as IBM.
Solid troll post. 8/8
If you’re from the ESX side of things at VMware, its very well respected. If you write Java stuff, its like Having Oracle on your resume.
Only a problem if you have a resume.
I would put all of those companies in tier 3.
All depends on the work you do and the title you hold