On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 15:27, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > I don't understand this statement.
>From what I've seen, LPI has limited resources. It would be great if LPI could "take over the world." But until then, integrating LPI into a conglomerate of existing certifications would be a good "first move" IMHO. It could be done independently of LPI. > LPI is an org that does certifications. Who are the Perl or Apache or > PostgreSQL vendors that would step up to the plate to do this? PostgreSQL used to offer a commercial entity. Maybe one could start one built around it. Although Red Hat has now done that on their end too. > Waiting for training companies to design their own certifications worries me > to no end. The term 'conflict of interest' keeps popping into my head. I know, I know. I agree 100%. But with limited resources, that's where I've seen LPI at. I, of course, don't > Well, I can't speak to the resources of LPI but I do agree that we should > make these partnerships with the various foundations that 'own' the various > technologies. I mentioned this more in a previous e-mail so I won't go into > it here. I'd just market LPI to other companies like Prosoft Training, etc... They seem to be willing to accept other certifications. So they'd be my recommendation for getting a "LAMP certification now" strategy: Linux: LPIC-1 or LPIC-2 (maybe 2 levels?) Apache: CIW Sys Admin exam or possibly new Apache.ORG exam MySQL: Various MySQL AB exams PHP/Perl: Zend PHP Exam or CIW Perl exam option > There is a catch on the partnerships, though. If we want these new certs to > be eligible for NOCA/NCCA [http://www.noca.org] in the fashion that we are > applying for with the admin certs, certain things [like proper pschometrics] > have to be carried out. Correct. Which is why that's a good "future" consideration for LPI on its own. But at this time, I could see an _independent_ (training-oriented, non-LPI aligned other than LPI pre-requisite) LAMP certification being almost immediately available. That's all I was suggesting. > I'm confused here, too. You say that the one cert that they do have sucks. > Why encourage them to do more, if they may suck? The exams suck. But they accept and build some of their programs on other certifications. > I would much rather see an organization that doesn't have profit as a motive > do the OSS certs, too. I agree. Which is why I think it's a good move for the future to see LPI move in this direction. But I was wondering how feasible it is. If CIW, or someone else, moved in that direction now, it would at least see LPI getting more consideration (since LPIC-1 or LPIC-2 would be required) > How do you know that this is a resource issue? Perhaps it's a market > readiness issue that's holding back level 3? Or a clear definition of just > what level 3 should be? I don't. I'm stabbing in the dark, I agree. I offered my suggestion on the Security Level 3 to follow the 7 domains of the CBoK that are aligned with the ISC2 SSCP -- since LPI could align real-world, platform-centric, task oriented questions around the more theory, platform-agnostic generalizations of the latter. I haven't had time to do much more as of late, although I'd love to work on the Samba exam too. > When I went to the UN/WSIS conference last year, more people there were > interested in desktop certifications than YAAC [Yet Another Admin Cert]. Yep. Mic > Exactly what I was thinking. LPI + Apache leaves only the other two. I'll leave it to you guys to direct the future. I was just merely suggesting that someone like CIW could get a LAMP cert out there now, which only benefits LPI who could provide the "L" part now. LPI + Apache + MySQL could always build their own latter. I mean, even IBM and Sun have different Java exams which are each related and independently, respectively, of the CIW program -- but CIW accepts both. As such, I'm sure CIW would openly accept a future Apache.ORG exam, PHP or Perl exam as an "equivalent" of its own respective exam in its LAMP program at a latter date. They've done that before. -- Bryan J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
