Faber Fedor wrote:
> I think Richard has a point, namely, do we test for jargon?
>
> I can see why we should, but I don't see how. I, for one, would not trust
> an admin who didn't know the difference between an MUA and and MAU.
I don't see any point in testing for "jargon". We should simply use the
appropriate acronyms in the tests and then the curricula can address it as
needed. If the curricula is aimed at beginners it can address the acronyms more
in-depth; if it's aimed more at an advanced audience it can assume such
knowledge. There's plenty of non-product related acronyms in M$ tests, UTP,
CSU/DSU, ODI, NDIS, ARP, PAP and NT-specific stuff like SID, BDC, HCL, NTHQ,
blah, blah, blah. I think invariably with the knowledge of the subject comes the
awareness of the acronyms. Indeed, testing acronyms would probably be a bad
thing in that it would promote people who can throw acronyms around like they
know what they're talking about but really not have a clue.
> It would be silly to have a separate test of just TLAs, but then dropping
> the TLAs into the other tests might be frowned upon. How is this handled in
> other tests? For M$, the only TLAs I remember seeing were product related
> (IIS, SMS, etc.).
>
> And JIC (just in case) you did't know, TLA means "Three Letter Acronym". :-)
>
> At 10:35 PM 6/24/99 -0400, Richard Rager wrote:
> >Ok I was reading bug-track tonight.
> <snip>
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
