Bryan J Smith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Alessandro Selli <[email protected] >> wrote: >> I'm beginning to feel the need of a four-tiered LPI Certification path >> (LPIC-1: Basic Linux for End-users, LPIC-2: Advanced Linux for End-users >> and Basic Linux Administration, LPIC-3: Advanced Linux Administration >> and LPIC-4: Linux in an Enterprise Environment), or maybe a three-step >> certification process for LPIC-1 and -2 instead of the present two-step >> one. Linux indeed is a huge topic, and it keep growing at an ever >> faster pace. >> > And now the meta-discussions begin. Oh boy. ;)
I've got nothing against meta-discussion, I only mind bloody fighting! :-) >> I know the LPIC-1 outlined above looks like Linux Essentials, but >> everything technical LE covers is also covered by LPIC-1, so LE does not >> help slimming down the number of LPIC-* objectives. >> > I don't know ... LPI was worked for a decade and a half ... so what's the > problem in its history? I don't think there is any problem in it's history, but I'm getting the feeling that Linux is outgrowing LPI. There is much debate on what has to be left out. Much of it is reasonable, but sometimes something has to be left out that would do a good service to a sizeable number of Linux professionals. And Linux keeps growing and growing, doing more and more things, using more and more tools, on new architectures... I wouldn't be surprised to learn LPI's certifications are leaving out just as much as they cover. > I think too many people are disappointed that their favorite brand name or > technology doesn't get put into an exam. Nothing's going to solve that. Indeed. That's natural. I do consider myself genuinely brand-neutral, however I do care to have the tools I am most familiar with (because I do use them often) included somewhere. I think this is what most people do, and there's nothing bad about it. I only would like to know if, thinking long-term (beyond the two years frame) there can be some reorganizing of the certification process that could include more technologies and tools and not overcrowd a single exams' objectives. > It's easy to shotgun manage this, but I would never want to step in the > shoes of Matt (or Scott for that matter) any day. God knows I couldn't > keep my mouth shut at times like they do. ;) I'm just trying to collect ideas that might be floating around, I am not proposing any change now. I do intend to "tread lightly" on this round of objective's addendum/clarification time. -- Alessandro Selli <[email protected]> Tel. portatile: 340.839.73.05 VOIP SIP: [email protected] Sito web: http://alessandro.route-add.net/ Chiavi PGP/GPG keys: B7FD89FD, 4A904FD9 _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
