On Mar 17, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Jacek Artymiak (devGuide.net) wrote:
Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> ...Thanks to Jacek there are some sort of digest for recently discussed topics. Let me pass trough it.For the two development directions under BSD systems there are not so smooth (at least as for me). Those possible includes: ... For system developers this also should cover: ...
So far, the best way to certify developers' skills was through their contributions to the favorite project. If they can write something that meets' the respective project leader's criteria for quality. If people use it, and the developers themselves keep on maintaining their code over long periods of time, then it's the best proof of their skills. I don't think that any certification can replace public scrutiny of the code itself. Just my .02 polish new zloty's (PLN) worth ;-)
Which is probably now worth 2 US dollars. . . .
The criteria for a developers BSD cert is completely different from a sysadmin cert.
But I agree that whatever we ultimately come up with that, it will be about peer review and committed code as a much as anything else.
IMHO this should depends on exam topics. For fundamental priciples this1) Certificate duration. I'd vote for 2 years. That seems to be a fairly reasonable period of time.
period may be prologued up to 3 (or even 4) years total.
That's true. Perhaps the security cert ought to be shorter, say 2 years, while the networking and system administration certs could be valid for 4 years.
But there remains the question of all or one of the BSDs per cert.
If we have certs for each BSD, it would have be tied to release branches. A more general BSD cert would not have to be, IMHO.
3) Q & A vs. test-labs. I'd vote against automated Q & A tests. I'd goThis is a question of ballance. While test-labs provides more
for a series of test sessions that judge the ability to handle specific
tasks. The candidate ought to be given a challenge, e.g. to configure a
certain type of a firewall setup and then monitor it and write a report.
comprehensive and adequate testing, Q&A sets is easy to implement and
pass. We can combine both: first, theoreticall questions; next,
practice. On the other hand, Q&A results may be verified by any people
who have a master copy, but practical test must be checked by
expirienced human on prepared evaluation model and thus cannot be passed
at just any test-center.
BSD has always been about quality and technical excellence, which is why I'd like to see the same attributes associated with the BSD certification process. True, test-labs will be expensive to create and maintain, and the tests will take longer, but at least we will be able to convince people that it is worth the effort and that we are going for quality rather than quantity. I think that strategy will prove to be the right one in the long run.
I agree that something more than a multiple choice exam is necessary, I wonder whether if it's a test lab or a written practical. I agree that quality needs to be our main goal.
I have raised this a bunch of times, but I am strongly in favor of doing a written practical. SANS, which has been an example for many, requires the practical, which doesn't just illustrate a test-takers proficiency in expressing their knowledge, but it also increases the body of documentation for the area. And it would be great to create a large repository of useful documentation on the BSDs that are how-tos and other technical documents.
People generally associate a lot more value with something that is rare or scarce, so if there are only a few high-quality centers that prepare and test people, then the candidates will be more likely to consider such certification as truly valuable, even if they have to wait for their turn a few weeks.
Absolutely. It would really be a continuation of the BSD reputations, in many ways.
4) Target level. I'd go after the Tillman's "low-to-middle" category of
people who want a certificate because they need it to get a job. They
will be more motivated to go into the trouble of certifying their skills.Average BSD user is fairly knowledgable. So test must be directed to people who knows how to exit from vi(1).
Sure. No question about that.
Nice way to put it with the vi exiting. . . just, I plead, nothing on emacs. <g>
If we are aiming for a single, all in one BSD cert, I think we focus on two things: the methods, history and commonalities of the BSD projects, plus general Unix knowledge, of course including vi.
That is the approach I personally support.
We would also then have to have a section on, say, firewalling, and cover the three firewalls most commonly used and show how each is implemented on each. Or updating the source, ports, whatever. . we'd have to account for the sometimes enormous differences, but also give enough depth to put them under one umbrella when it's not that obvious.
George
_______________________________________________ BSDcert mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsdcert
