*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 31/01/00 at 13:51 Paul Brown wrote:
>>> 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.
Well, it looks as though we are thinking the same here, just using slightly
different words, I guess we may be at level 2 :-)
>
>> 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.
I would have thought that the electives could be for a level 3 specialist,
but I guess it would not hurt to have it in level 2 as well.........
>
>Paul
--
Greg Wright
IT Consultant Sydney Australia PH 0418 292020
Available for Global Contracts Int. +61 418 292020
web http://www.ausit.com e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T/A AAA Computers & ITpro & Ozzie Soft, providers of IT, ISP & Software
services.
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
