MJ Ray wrote: > Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The Red Hat certs [...] The candidates machines are >> human checked for errors and whether the different parts are setup/working. >> > > Sure, but I've been told that setting something up according to, say, > File Hierarchy Standard, can get you marked down for not doing it the > Red Hat way. They're Red Hat certs, after all, aren't they? Which > isn't all that great for real heterogenous sysadminning. >
I agree they are aimed for just the RedHat platform and aren't supposed to be a general Linux cert. What I'm impressed with is their testing methodology. To me it seems clearly a much better way of doing it. If I were hiring a sysadmin to work on RedHat based machines (including CentOS, etc) and they had the RHCE certificate, I would feel no need to test them on the skills covered by the RHCE certificate (unless it was very old). Obviously I'd still test them on some job specific tasks relating to what we need exactly. But the cert would make my tests shorter, and help me choose potential candidates for the position easier. Obviously candidates for the position without the RedHat cert would still be viable, but I'd test that they had the skills on the RedHat cert to make sure they were capable. Which would take up more of my time. I'm Strongly against Bad Perl Certification. I'm Strongly for Good Perl Certification. Lyle _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
