Evan Leibovitch wrote: > The writer clearly had no clue of the field and just held a > couple of "what makes yours so special?" inteviews with each > of the leaders. No analysis, no recommendation, no third-party > observers, just one of those "whatever works best for you" > shallow non-conclusions.
And I've even seen reviews that go on pure name recognition. While that may get you so far with HR or a non-technical manager, possibly leading to an interview, it's not uncommon to see actual technical leads, managers and fellow staffers think quite otherwise. Even I, who is a self-admitted Red Hat cronie and apologist (let alone a radical American Libertarian and closet study of American Republicanism including -- gasp -- strong beliefs in righteousness of Capitalism -- oh no! ;-), clearly biased because I've built 90% of my Linux career on Red Hat, loathe the reviews that correlate "RHCE" to "MCSE" in name recognition. It's beyond the fact that the "E" poorly represents the programs (I being a traditional engineer, so further biased there), because LPI is a very well established mark across the world, and the LPIC program respect for what it is. Hell, even CertCities tracks "name recognition" and LPI is very much up there these days. [ NOTE: The rest of this isn't a response to Evan's comments ] Frankly, I've adopted the same attitude on any Linux program, project or other entity. I don't describe my professional analysis and preference in terms of what is wrong with another program (although I do use that sometimes when it truly crosses actual ethical boundaries, in the community interest, and not just assumed ones), but on the merits of the program itself. I have constantly preached -- no I've had "sermons" ;-) -- on "why LPI is different" on this list and elsewhere. There is a reason for it, but it doesn't require me to "tear down" or "demonize" other Linux certification programs in the process any more than Linux distribution preference should drive the same against other Linux distributions. In fact, just about certification program can find itself with many differentiators from another. So it's far better to go on the positives of what program offers -- which is so easy with LPI's organization and approach. Now in the end, it really doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks, much less what some IT media publication thinks or even analyzes in detail, even if the CIO reads those headlines (which are often sensational and not the "full story" anyway). It only matters what your client, customer and/or employer thinks, especially the prospective ones. ;) And since Linux certifications aren't mutually exclusive for individuals -- just like Linux distributions in an organization -- people do need to stop and realize more than one exists for a reason -- just like Linux distributions. So professionals should cater to the certification"S" -- plural -- that their clients (or your employer's clients) desire (at least in the case of consultants or other professional who require such credentials and designations). Which is why we really don't need to push the farce of "just one, but you can only get one," but more on _why_ LPI should always be included in the certification"S" that a Linux professional obtains. That's the best, most direct and most professional (IMPO) approach we can make, and we should push LPI Alumni to make. I use every opportunity where my RHCE is highlighted to discuss the LPIC program, and I do it without interjecting any negative commentary on the RHCE program. In fact, to do such is just self-destructive anyway, and not really a matter of "right" or "wrong." It's in your own, professional interest to adopt such an attitude. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
