On Monday 12 September 2005 14:03, Nuno Duarte wrote: > hi all, > > about the content of the certifications, it is my opinion that in the > codenamed associate version, the content should focus on knowledge:
This is where I disagree, pretty strongly with other certs. It's almost like they have never worked in an IT department. This is why it's important to understand job functions and the level of 'hands on' expertise required for the position and translate this into a decent BSD certification structure. and level of knowledge. If I am running a department or am a senior IT tech, when we employ a new sysadmin, we want them to know the basics which is knowing the correct commands for the OS, knowing the applications to support end users etc. There is NO WAY they are going to rebooting our servers, updating the software and kernel and bringing a deluge of complaints when the system is inaccessable or down because it won't reboot. You may disagree > * the install process installing the OS is a higher level function. They should be looking after users. > * the boot process No > / simple shell scripting Yes > / basic survival /etc knowledge locations etc. but he shouldn't be playing with a running system beyond user support, applications emails, ftp/sftp, ssh skills etc. Jeesh. There are several email servers out there. having someone trained to be competent to look after sendmail, postfix, qmail, communigate etc. would be good. Mailing list servers, webs servers etc. > * configure hardware (re-compile kernel etc) and all sorts of client No > mainstream software (X11/mp3/web browser/etc) plus be aware of several > tecniques do update your software (userland+kerneland) (basic network > configuration in implied here, windows managers like KDE,gnome) I don't use X11 on servers, unless I have to (not my decision). IT departments do controlled, supervised updates, often testing on a spare machine, if they have one, prior to an update > * basically every other task that a normal regular user does like > setting up a workstation. I think workstation/desktop should be separate. With a hundred users to a server, there are many more issues, from printers to USB key-thumbs, to people switching graphic and sound cards, lan cards etc. Supporting workstation/desktop users is intense and deserves a separate cert for greater specialisation. > On the other hand, the codenamed professional version, there should be > more emphasis on advaced tasks like: > * setting up dhcpd,ftp,cvs,http,ipsec,routing,dns,advanced openssh > (tunels,fowarding,etc) servers No...They are rare one-offs or done infequently. Someone with greater experience should do it. > * advanced user managment like using pw instead of adduser script to > give an example. do things like crypted filesystems, implement > trustedbsd/Mandatory Access Control features,etc No...same as above > * have medium/advanced know-how and diferences of several types of > shells sh bash ksh tcsh csh zsh The common shells that BSD's use. > * perform advanced shell scripts to manage situations that if worked out > by hand would take for ever. Yes, as long as it doesn't impact the system. So scripts will just fail. Others could be more serious. > these are just some ideas to iniciate the apropriate grounds for alpha > stage devel of the whole thing, anyways, the content will become more > clear with the upcoming surveys feedback. Maybe i'm wrong here and > there, but at least is a sketch to start with. :-) > > happy replying Sure. It's good to discuss. As you can see. I want an administrator to administer established systems with respect to users. shells, test tools that don't affect the system, users and especially knowing the main user apps. I really would like to see Two server levels and a workstation/desktop cert. Regards...Martin _______________________________________________ BSDCert mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsdcert
