Alan McKinnon wrote: >On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Dimitrios Bogiatzoules, LPI Product >Developer wrote: > > >>Alan, >> >>I'm biased, but that was a very, very fine essay about vendor >>neutrality... >> >> >>@Scott: Alan's last sentence is worth to be used on LPI's website, >>IMHO. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Taki >> >> > ><blush> > >Thanks for that Taki :-) It took 4 tries before I got the wording right, >I had to try real hard to NOT come across as my usual dismissive >bigoted self, so thanks to everyone who had nice things to say about >what I wrote. > >Scott, if you think what I wrote is worth using by LPI, please go right >ahead and use it > > > > I like it too. I will look for an appropriate spot to insert it :-)
In the interim, I'm going to direct the journalist who made the original inquiry to this list. Its public and "uncoached". He can pick and choose who he wants to contact or quote. However, as I have forwarded names to him of those who have contacted me off list I'm going to compile a list of all who have contributed to date to this discussion and send that to him as well. There are other media who monitor this list--many this will lead to something else ;-) Thanks everyone for the very spirited and informed discussion! scott > > >>Alan McKinnon said the following on 11.03.2008 22:19: >> >> >>>To my mind, this is a no-brainer question. Vendor-neutral Linux >>>certifications are a necessity, vendor-specific certifications are >>>a luxury. >>> >>>I hold current RHCE and LPI certs, I have authored and designed >>>LPI-aligned courseware and courses, and delivered them. In my >>>current day job I deliver RHCE courses as part of my duties. >>> >>>I can attest that the vendor-specific courses and certification >>>concentrates in large degree on *how* something is done on that >>>vendor's system and the reason why the software works that way is a >>>secondary item. The vendor is interested in checking if the >>>candidate can do specific actions the way they were designed to be >>>done. >>> >>>LPI exams are different. Because they are not aligned to a specific >>>vendor, what gets examined is the upstream defaults. There is an >>>obvious focus on why a piece of software works the way it does, >>>what is correct usage and what is incorrect. Thus, the candidate is >>>tested n their understanding of how the system works as a whole. >>> >>>This is not to say that vendor-specific certifications are without >>>value, that is not true. They are indeed valuable. But if all >>>current Linux vendors with certification programs were to disappear >>>tomorrow, Linux itself would still exist, life would continue and >>>the industry would still need to be able to measure the skills of >>>administrators in general. >>> >>>I have heard the argument that Red Hat's certification for example >>>does not tell you much about someone's prowess when confronted with >>>SuSE, or Debian or Slackware. I do not agree with this viewpoint as >>>a Linux administrator is daily called on to learn new things. Even >>>when using only Red Hat Linux he/she will often need to pick up new >>>skills that are not covered in the Red Hat exams. This is no >>>different really from moving to SuSE from Red Hat - new software, >>>new skills. >>> >>>The real difference is as I have mentioned above - the type of >>>testing that is done in each class of certification: >>> >>>Vendor-specific certifications test the *how*. Vendor-neutral >>>certifications test the *why* and are thus more fundamental. >>> >>> > > > > > -- Scott Lamberton Director of Communications Linux Professional Institute Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.lpi.org Telephone: +1-416-666-1574
_______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
