"G. Matthew Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a matter of semantics to me. LPIC-1, to me, is a level for > qualifying a technical person that is serious about progressing > in his career and wants to demonstrate a great knowledge base in > the field. "system admin" would definitely qualify as a > description of LPIC-1. "network admin" is not at the LPIC-1 > level (that's LPIC-2/3).
Well, you know my long-standing attitude. I don't like exams that only cater to things people can do at home or on a standalone web server. I like more enterprise-focused exams (even if 97% of people here disagree with me). > However, I would trust someone with an LPIC-1 to also, with > appropriate additional training and experience, to be able to > go into the developer arena with confidence. Just basic shell scripting would be nice. I don't consider "automation" to be optional when it comes to sysadmin. But that's opinion (subjective). ;) > This is why I would like to steer away from calling LPIC-1 an > 'admin' cert. I realize that 'power user' is not a great > description either. > The best description that I've come up with so far is a "Technical > Linux Professional" or a "Linux Professional" (I guess the LPI > name wasn't such a bad idea :)). Just remember that when you put Linux(R) in the name, you have to brand it further. E.g., *NO*: Linux(R) Technical Professional YES: LPI(R) Linux(R) Technical Professional But a better one may be ... Linux Professional Institute (LPI) Technician Or (for short) ... LPI Technician I believe LPI originally called their certification "Linux Certified," and "LPI Certified" (LPIC) came about because of the usage terms of the Linux(R) trademark. This affects all uses of Linux(R), even by licensees. E.g., Red Hat is very keen on ensuring that all it's partners, including Linux(R) licensees, respect the wishes of Linus, Linux International, etc... The last time Red Hat was ever involved with an unbranded use of the Linux(R) trademark was SGI's "Linux(R) University" circa 1999. Red Hat currently uses that as an example of what not to do with the Linux(R) trademark, even though it has licensed it. In the case of Fedora(TM), Red Hat does not use Linux(R) at all in any of its branding (for various reasons, including licensing). > ie, not just a user, but not quite a developer or a network > admin or ... Understood. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
