On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, A.R. (Tom) Peters wrote: ARTP:>On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, daan wrote: ARTP:> ARTP:>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Jonathon Coombes wrote: ARTP:>> ARTP:>> JC:>"A.R. (Tom) Peters" wrote: ARTP:> ARTP:>%< my comments have disappeared from the quotes >% ARTP:> ... I just removed some more ARTP:>> So you mean?: an enterprise level sysadmin be very good (better then ARTP:>> advanced) *and* have some specialized skills. The practice on level 1, ARTP:>> two general and one specialized exam, can be repeated here in some ARTP:>> form. ARTP:>> ARTP:>> If you do, I agree. Level four could then mean deepening the ARTP:>> specialized skills and/or extending into more fields. At Snow it is ARTP:>> our opinion that a senior sysadmin distinguishes herself by being able ARTP:>> to acquire more specialties easely. ARTP:> ARTP:>Daan, ARTP:> If I understand correctly you want to insert a general Level 3 for ARTP:>senior (enterprise-level) sysadmins, and then have a level 4 for expert ARTP:>specializations: but this is what we had in mind for Level 3. Is there ARTP:>any value in making another advanced general level? Already we have ARTP:>discussions about topics if they should go into Level 2, or are too ARTP:>specialized that most people won't need them so they shouldn't be part of ARTP:>the general level(s). ARTP:> Please note that for obtaining Level 3 certification we would require ARTP:>any two specialization exams, but you can take extra exams if you like to ARTP:>get endorsements. ARTP:> I already explained the background of our current model (briefly ARTP:>described in http://www.lpi.org/c-process.html) in my original post. If ARTP:>we would need another (general) Level 3 certification, please address the ARTP:>arguments and put forth some good reasons, preferably with real-world ARTP:>data, why it should change. However, I think we should be concentrating ARTP:>on Level 2 for now. I mentioned level four, yes, but it was ment as any following level. Level 2 could contain general advanced knowledge plus some extra (RAID maybe, or ldap, or snmp or programming laguages). What I don't see is that a specialization like ( I won't use RAID ) mail servers is worth an extra level. Real time servers would maybe, or IPv6 and indeed maybe RAID but I doubt it (job survey would help). A level two could contain specialization. Level one does. What I ment by "Level four could ...", is that we could think of an inventive level (or part of a level). One in which no prior knowledge of applications or system software would help, but in which one is tested for ability to cope with new situations. Meanwhile we are discussing raid not wireless-lan, wavlan, irda etc. Half the features in the linux kernel I don't diable because I don't know (exactly) what they mean. They don't diturb me or my clientele. When they do, I will know what they mean in half a day at most. I never needed RAID, a colleague did. I will ask him where the howto is when i need it. Please test me on how I cope with the howto. I don't care for the number of levels (though i think more small level are stimulating students), I think that knowledge is not the issue, understanding is. RAID for inst^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMail servers for instance require much understanding and indeed a little knowledge for which ne could be tested. Yes I think more levels are allright but not necessary. Extra topics make them necessary, without testing what a sysadmin is about. mail or other internet servers, RAID storage, wavelan, ham or other radio nets, are all subjects that could fit into level 2 and deserve a specializtion at the same time. Acting as a consultant to higher management (this is not the first time i am reading it) should you be a specialist or know a bit of every thing or both. I don't think much of ditribution specific test in level 1, but they make more sense the more I think of it. A level can and always shall contain *some* specialization, but a specialization cannot be a level. RAID is a good candidate for a very limited part of level 2 specialization, and there are many more. In general there should be less knowledge and more undrestanding in the exams the higher the level. I'm missing this principal, specificaly in the discussion on raid. Not in the draft by J. (kara ) Pritchard by the way. My remarks to that are trivial and concern things like emacs and (open)ssh. I think i raged here, sorry. :wq! Daan Hoogland Unix consultants v v [EMAIL PROTECTED] OO developers \ / ### ## ## # >---X---< http://snow.nl # # # # # # # # / \ Snow B.V. ## # # # # # # # ^ ^ Tel. (+31)418-653333 # # # # # # # # Fax. (+31)418-653666 ### # # ## ## ## -- This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list. Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to leave the list.
