That's a comment written just after the first post of Anselm. Once I happen to believe LPI was different from almost all certifications, in the same way Linux/GPL software was different from proprietary software. I took the LPIC-1 certification, and I became at the same time surprised - and happy - to see that the title was to be held forever. That was different, and there was some reasoning in that. I remember to follow a thread in this list, where someone was arguing that this had sense because if someone took the exams and was approved, it was a fact, and this could not be denied by anyone, forever. Of course knowing all about kernel 2.0 in 2015 could have no utility, but the fact of the certification in those arts couldn't be denied.
This sounded like someone telling that I didn't conclude my graduation. Of course I did. It is common sense that nobody at the university will change my records to inactive. And I am not using Pascal or Fortran anymore, although I know vaguely how to use them. Now I feel like someone who have their rights made void, or have their beliefs turned into junk. The rules supposed to be followed forever at that time - I believed that - seemed to be changed as somebody realized they are not suitable, without contacting those whose rights could be affected. For those who have a valid ID for five years, maybe in three or four years the ID can be changed to inactive, as soon those enlightened people consider it to be older, obsolete, or incompatible with the common knowledge of the Linux practitioneers. Now the rule is to recertify at each five years, but who knows if it will change before? The bottom line is that in my opinion, unfortunately, LPI is getting closer to the proprietary solutions to the certification and education industry. A proof is the scarse postings to this list, if compared to two or three years before. Nothing against proprietary solutions, software or certification. They are only different from the communitary counterparts. They are needed in today's society. But it was a nice case of a communitary project on the certifications industry. Like Anselm, those are my opinions. Luiz Em Sex, 2006-12-01 às 18:32 +0100, Anselm Lingnau escreveu: > Scott Lamberton wrote: > > > Linux Professional Institute changes Recertification Policy > > > > [...] > > I'm not going to comment on this other than that I think recertification > every > two years is silly. Linux moves fast but not quite *that* fast. On the other > hand, frequent recertification does generate money for the LPI, so must be a > good thing. We're beating Microsoft at their own game :^) > > My question is the following: It used to be forbidden for successful > candidates to re-sit an LPI exam unless the objectives had changed in the > meantime. I can see the LPI reviewing the objectives once per exam in the > space of five years, but if you recommend that people recertify themselves at > much shorter intervals (like two years), is the ban on unmodified re-sits > going to be lifted, or are you going to commit to a two-year maximum cycle > for objective reviews for all exams? > > Anselm Lingnau > > (This is my personal opinion and not that of Linup Front GmbH.) _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
