On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:27 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 19:20 -0400, ross brunson wrote:
Right on, I see the Samba exam as being something that tests your
ability to properly bridge or integrate the two environments, 'cause
let's face it, Samba exists so that it can help other systems
interface or replace or emulate etc. as or to a Windows system.
But there are many facilities _outside_ of Samba that _also_ bridge
the
two environments. Network authentication, directory and naming
services
that are _not_ provided by the Samba project do such for UNIX/Linux
and
Windows integration. They are just as key, and not just Samba
provided
ones.
As much as I agree that all of this is integrated, I think that
widening the scope to encompass all the possible permutations and
inter-relationships between these topics is a bit beyond this
format. You're talking about having someone answer a multiple-choice
question, it can't be THAT complex if it's going to be conveyed in a
single screen or even a couple of screens worth of text and pictures.
I guess you've probably gone on about this enough to make the point,
so how do you propose to make all of this into objectives that won't
bloat up into something that takes us 2-3 years? I think that the
farthest we should be going is to have a Networked File Systems exam
instead of just a Samba one, but I can't see making this into a full-
blown directory services integrated file system with various
authentication modules exam, unless everyone decides together that it
should be reworked or revised.
Is that the goal? Are you asking the team to consider reworking the
current Level 3 plan? How do we come to a consensus about this, and
is it even open to a vote, as it were? Taki?
Yeah, nothing is worse than a bigoted Microsoft technician who hates
Linux and Unix and yet has to work around and with it for his job,
unless it's an equally bigoted OSS person who can't be bothered to
learn Windows technologies because they are "dirty" and
"proprietary".
Actually, it goes worse than that.
_Nothing_ is worse than someone who puts in a Linux solution but
doesn't
know the first thing about UNIX/Linux services alongside Windows.
That's why the Linux server merely remains as a Windows server and
_nothing_ else.
Solid point, I would recommend it be a Migration/Integration focus,
and that would be one way only. I feel no responsibility
*whatsoever* to teach/certify someone about how to migrate from Samba
to AD.
And if "Migration/Integration" is the key, at what point are we
saying,
"oh, Linux makes a great Windows server ... oh, but, we don't care
about
other client support."
Never have said we don't care about client support, but at this level
it almost has to be a Services play and set of tasks, with a light
dusting of clients, we're TESTING them, not teaching them.
The Microsoft desktop certification has little to do with network
configuration. Windows networking is covered over a range of
training courses and certification programs - each of which has its
own examination.
The MCDST _does_ address some of the _client_ support. In fact, the
MCDST and MCSA address _all_ of the Windows client support. The MCSE
addresses *0* beyond what the MCSA does.
Umm, agreed, and the MCDST objectives can probably be used in part as
"inspiration" for the client-config piece of the eventual exams we
are writing, but I can't imagine that client piece being more complex
than about 2-4 questions on any of the generated exams. The very
fabric of what you are proposing we turn this into necessitates that
we defocus on the client side except for some basics that match this
level's difficulty.
It's even worse now, it's no longer one MS course per exam, they are
mixed up some now so that you can't just take a single course and get
a single exam out of the way.
Because technologies are inter-related. That's the problem. That's
always the problem. The only way is to try to break it up into exams,
but much courseware is still inter-related, because of how the
services
inter-operate.
You don't take just an exam on ADS that addresses everything.
And the main point you didn't mention is that you don't think we can
just have a Samba exam that addresses everything that Samba touches
or employs in it's inter-relationships. I think the risk is that
suddenly we are testing in very complex scenarios that are going to
be extremely difficult to fit into the question format that we employ
with VUE and Prometric. This is going to make for a lot of
"scenario" style questions and those will be by necessity very
complex to read, understand and then pick an answer from a set list
of single lines or sentences.
Again, my hope is that we all remember that this is a Level 3 cert,
and by this time people should have a good working set of networking
skills and not be a Window Virgin, very damn few positions I have
seen could be so isolated in todays networking environment, perhaps
at an ISP or some large corporation's Server group, but surely not in
the SMB or middle tier market.
You don't have to do a full exam on OpenLDAP or FDS. But you had
better
understand some basic authentication protocols, their services setup,
common compatibility as well as how different resource services are
listed and available across an enterprise for different clients -- all
in addition to basic DNS, DDNS updates and key objects, such as SysV
records for Kerberos, etc...
Agreed, but again is the proposal that we chuck the current exam
layout, or alter the exams to better incorporate what you envision as
being needed?
This is level 3.
Ah yeah, but it has to be doable, not be such a mass of
interdependent complexity that we can't write the exams.
Ross
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
