On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 17:09, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > I still hold that these certs shouldn't be controlled by commercial > entities.
In an ideal world, I agree 100%. I would even take it a step beyond. [ FYI, I'm a "traditional engineer" that believes strongly in protecting the "public trust" in any title. ] > As for PostgreSQL, I went up to their booth and said 'who should I talk to in > your group that is interested in talking about a cert?' They pointed me to > two guys that wanted to help out. My take from the conversation, though, is > that they couldn't think of anyone other that LPI that could help them > accomplish the job. And I agree too. I hope it comes to fruitition. > They're also two of the people that I'll be inviting to this mailing list, > since it seems that no one objects to discussing this topic on this list. Actually, I see a lot of interest. I was just laying out some "immediate" options. They were just suggestions. > I don't think that resources are as big an issue as you think. I know that > LPI has been offered money [one form of resource] in the past from very large > philanthropic groups. I would rather approach this from the 'let's define > the scope, requirements and partnerships' and then find the resources to > accomplish it. And that would be great to see. > I was thinking that it could be either LPIC-1 or just one of the LPIC-1 exams > [maybe 101; it seems to cover more of the LAMP-ish stuff, like Unix commands, > installation and package management. Although, 102 covers networking]. I know, I helped write the new exams. ;-ppp > Have a guy that is _very_ keen on this [also in the Seattle area, BTW]. He's > already done a lot of the work on a JTA, too. And that's even better. > There is probably a big snag with these guys. My understanding is that they > didn't do proper pschometric evaluations on their exam and it may not be 'up > to snuff' :( Something to explore with them, though. Hey, maybe push then into changing their format when they rev their exams next year. > I agree, in principal, that we should look at partnering with existing > exams. I'm sitting on the card for the Director of Certification and > Training for Zend and he seems to be interested in the possibilities. Again, it's not always a "negative" to use what exists. You can _always_ usurp them later. I only mention CIW because they have shown they are more than willing to accept other vendor's exams as "equivalent" for their own. > I hope that it doesn't sound like name/connection dropping. I just went > around the OSCON show floor and bugged everyone in sight. I even got the > card of an ActiveState Director by saying, "So since Sophos bought you, do > you guys have any control over your own spending?" This guy claimed that he > could authorize a sponsorship for something like this. ActiveState would be an ideal partner. Never thought of them, but now that you mention them. > Yep. Personally, I hate PHP. But I do see it as an avenue to a quick LAMP, > too. And it may get the other guys motivated ;) Exactomundo. > I understand what you're getting at now. Thanx. Sorry if my initial response suggested otherwise. > I saw that. It's a good idea. I don't think it was well accepted, even though I really went in depth in breaking down the exam. I eventually gave up before publishing my 6 page outline, because I seemingly was the only guy. One thing that really gets me about the MS, CIW and other "Security" exams is the lack of "broadness." It doesn't have to be "too broad to be specific," but it _does_ seem that most of the questions center _only_ on 2-4 domains. I consider the 7 domains of the CBoK on the SSCP to be _essential_ from a _technical_ consideration standpoint to a "Systems Security." The other 3 domains (in the full CISSP) are more social. While the ISC2 exams are generic/platform-agnostic, it is extremely easy to create task-oriented questions that are very detailed/Linux-specific. Even SANS/GAIC uses the CBoK mapping as a consideration. I'm currently working on a security book with another author, and I would not back down to putting in an appendix with the CBoK mapping of concepts (as well as a final chapter on a "Corporate Security Policy") -- just to show that we have considered _everything_. The book itself is very task oriented (to a specific product). > That's very interesting to hear. It could be a stopgap solution. Ding, ding, ding ... winner! That's _exactly_ what I had in mind. > Let them CIW have a "LAMP" cert until LPI could fill in all the holes > and then announce an LPI LAMP cert? It could piss CIW off. Nope. Prosoft Training does training. They would offer training for both programs. They would also merely offer to charge you X dollars to convert your non-CIW LAMP cert into their own. Or combine some of their non-CIW exams with CIW ones. At least this has been their history. > BTW, I would neither be in favour nor opposed to this idea. It's really a question for outside LPI. I just merely suggested that someone mention it to CIW. I'm sure they would be very interested. > I'm taking the long-term view that even if it takes a year or two to launch > a full LPI-lead LAMP cert, so be it. Launch what we can do, as we do > it. Even with 2 years, we'd still be certifying Perl6 people before > Perl6 came out <muahahaha>. So, until then, CIW's existing Perl 5 exam could fit the bill. -- 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
