>> Hummm . . . That's not how I took it. I thought it meant a Level II
>> admin has to be proficient at the technical aspects of the job and
>> begin to delve into the management and planning aspects. You can
>> think of this as near-guru level for a technical track person or
>> management grooming for the management tracked professional.
> Seems like a very large step or gap, thats all........ I think Guru
> level could maybe shown by taking specific subjects, I agree however
> that people need to be proficient, but you need more levels between
> beginner and Superman......I think anyways....
It is a large learning curve. That is why I like to think of the three
levels as apprentice, journeyman, and master. The journeyman definitely
has the bulk of the work (or journey) to do. The master refines, refines,
refines until the real essence is distilled and understood. He can, with
but a single glance, slay the dragon.
Yep, I think level III (master) will have to take specialty tracks as well
as the baseline containing analysis, planning, and presentation skills.
The journeyman actually does the hands on systems admin while the master
may be more of a paper pusher or first/second level management.
>> You are correct that the definition does tend towards complete
>> technical competence which we all understand to be near impossible
>> due the breadth and depth of total systems administration. Who
>> can know every package, command, option, command-line switch there
>> is to very command? Perhaps a statement to that effect is needed.
>> Perhaps specialists in, say . . . web and e-commerce systems can
>> be Level II just as the core business systems specialists (accounting,
>> finance, marketing) can.
> I can see a clear future here, and I guess most if they stop and look
> around may see what I see, You will have 2 admins, one who does
> Internet based chores and is involved in e business etc, and the more
> traditional file and print services admins, this may span many OSs.....
Yep, that's what I see too. I also see those that handle the new, up
and coming, network appliances.
>> Maybe it's enough to have the experience of a core group of commands
>> and packages so that a journeyman can show he/she has the ability to
>> master and command. I liken this to knowing several programming
>> languages. If you already mastered C, Pascal, and Perl, how hard is
>> it for you too learn Java or C++? maybe that's the point and that is
>> what should be stated.
> Yes, maybe it could be stated that faced with the opposing type of
> systems administration, or by completing the exam, that the person
> holding such certificate is in fact more than capable of picking
> up many other things should they be faced.
Yep, the certification is just that. It qualitatively certifies that
the holder of the certificate is "capable" of doing all Level II tasks
whether he/she has done it/them before or not. It's a measuring stick
for competence. Management loves measuring sticks that way they can
use their time for maximum productivity.
>> HA HA HA HA! Not if he has a group of Level I's around that are in
>> training for level II! :-)
> :-) , train all they want, they wont be at level 2 for some years of
> hands on, and I mean real hands on, I would guess that to get to this
> level, realistically he is going to be in that training lab 18hours a
> day for some 2-3 years if he is a quick learner... :-)
Yep! Again, the old concept of a journeyman. This is were the journey
towards technical competence really takes place.
> In all seriousness, myself I can tackle almost anything, but I did those
> 18 hour days and started with no UNIX/Linux knowledge, there are still
> many things I have not touched. ie, you will probably laugh when I say
> I have not rebuilt a kernel, but in fact I have never had too RH has
> always had what I needed straight off, I have never used ppp in Linux,
> nor have I run a printer from it.....I do Internet related services,
> HTTP, FTP, DNS, SSH, ipchains etc etc
I think we agree that you or I not having done something firsthand, you
with the kernel and me with NFS or NIS (to name but a few!), is not the
point. We *have* done enough to make employers and peers feel that we
can be trusted to handle any of these technical projects. The
certification simply qualifies that competence.
> My point in all of this is that because Linux/UNIX will run every
> application or service known to man :-) does not mean we need to test
> for it.......you probably need to be aware however of what those
> services are and do ?
I agree. However, a core group of them should be tested for. Perhaps
it's enough to add all the basic ones to the test and then allow the
applicant to choose any 5 out of 8.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
President
Brown Technologies Network, Inc. http://www.btechnet.com/
Systems and Applications Design, Development, Deployment, and Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
