Bryan J Smith wrote: > However, also remember that like "Engineer," "Architect" may be a > reserved title in some locales. It's far less commonly an issue, and > even Microsoft is still using the "Architect" (MCA) title, whereas > they have dropped the "Engineer" (MCITP = IT Professional on 2008, > MCSE = Solutions Expert on 2012).
I don't know how Microsoft or Red Hat deal with this, but in Germany (one of LPI's main markets) you can't generally call yourself an »architect« unless you hold a professional qualification that involves – among other prerequisites – several years' worth of studying, at college/university level, the theory and practice of putting up physical buildings. Some colleagues of mine found out about this the hard way when they were trying to establish a company called »Architects of VoIP« (in English, notably). Apparently there are professional bodies of genuine, building-type, architects who will come down on you like a ton of bricks (and maybe a steel girder or two thrown in for good measure) if you use the »A« word where you shouldn't. The »engineer« moniker seems to be less of an issue since the German term is »Ingenieur«, and that is, in fact, a reserved title (which again you need to spend considerable time at a university or polytechnical college to obtain). Since in ICT circles hereabouts the »engineer« seems to occur only in English and in composite phrases such as »Such-and-such Certified Engineer«, the genuine Ingenieure don't seem to mind as much as the architects do (where the Hamming distance is only 1). > I've professionally found it's best to "educate" prospective > employers, peers and others on the value of LPI and the LPI Certified > (LPIC) program instead, including what the different levels cover. I > don't try to define LPI in terms of Red Hat, that never does well. I > define LPI in terms of its uniqueness in the industry. I agree with Bryan here. Chances are that if an employer specifically asks for somebody who is certified to RHCA level, they are looking for someone with specific and extensive knowledge of the Red Hat approach to things. This is something that LPI, as a vendor-independent organisation, cannot and will not deliver. If an employer asks for RHCA because that is the only advanced Linux certification they know, that is a different problem, but as Bryan suggests this cannot be solved by defining LPIC-3 (or whatever) in terms of RHCA. It may well be the case that an LPIC-3 alumnus might be much closer to what the employer actually requires, but that can only be ascertained by educating that employer about LPI(C) and how it works. > Even Microsoft itself suffered a _chronic_fail_ with its 83 series -- > remote virtualized system (real, running system -- which was the > Novell SuSE/Xen Linux practicum engine (right down to the NTLM "click > thru" trust and VNC picker). I sat the sole exam in this approach, > 83-640, and it was not only slow, but it crashed on me and I lost 20 > minutes (I still passed as I completed most of it). I haven't met anybody yet who was happy with the Novell exam machinery. > **Inactive as of 2008, but re-taking 101, 102, 201, 202, plus sitting > 301, next Tuesday. Way to go. Kick some a** ;^) Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & Netz-Schulungen [email protected], +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Geschäftsführer: Oliver Michel _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
