NOTE: My apologies in advance if Message-ID and threading is not preserved. I am responding to the digests.
From: "Lennart Sorensen" <[email protected]> > Of course in english 'to architect' has a meaning and it is very much > not reserved just for people designing buildings and other structures. > In Ontario, the Engineers complain plenty about using the word Engineer. Remember why the US state Regulatory Boards and National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) have entered litigation in the past. It's not because they are trying to be a "good 'ole boys club," but because they receive complaints from citizens. A privately certified individual may be civilly negligent. A publicly licensed individual can be found criminally negligent, just like a doctor or lawyer. That's why you need 10+ years of combined education and/or experience in the case of the latter. It's about the public trust. Microsoft and Novell might have done well enough to say, "Don't tell me how to build my network and I won't tell you how to build your bridge" in the northeast US states. But in Texas, which is a big semiconductor and software state, the EE/ECEs barked right back, "Okay, tell me how you designed this network equipment, from its ASIC to PCB traces to connectors, etc... so you comply with all of these EIA, FCC and other regulatory bodies?" Engineer != Engineering Technology != Technician Frankly, "traditional" engineers are not practical technologists, so I don't know why Engineering Technologists want to call themselves "Engineers." At the same time, I see some value in the state Board of Professional Engineers (BoPEs) opening up the software/technology of ET to vendor, as well as vendor agnostic, programs. After all, other than Texas here in the states, no state recognizes a "Software Engineer" as a valid, licensed discipline, despite the IEEE and others arguing the public need for them. Reminds me of the same, previous attitude towards Environmental Engineering in the '70s, and look what their licensure has done. "Fine, fire me, I will not allow a network to be installed like that because I could be criminally negligent and put in jail -- so I could care less how you threatened my job." That's the power of licensure, enforcement of statues for the public good. ;) From: Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> > 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. Both programs clarify what the term means, and how it has nothing to do with public licensure. In general, I don't like the usage, but that's just me professionally. DISCLAIMER: I hold an ABET Accredited (USA) Engineering degree and am a Certified Engineering Intern in Florida (USA). I have not bothered with Professional Engineering (PE) licensure, at least not yet. From: Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> > 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. As many people in the US, India and elsewhere are quite ignorant, there are many aspects of German civil and even criminal law that are far more "restrictive" when it comes to advertising, copyright, trademark, public licensure, etc... than in the US. DISCLAIMER: I may have never been out of the western hemisphere, but I try not to be ignorant of cultures, let alone their legal system and related, required knowledge that affects my profession. From: Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> > 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. Agreed. Which is why one has to take the time to educate everyone and, more pertinent yet, help the customers see their own requirements. Many think they know what they need, but actually do not. E.g., holding the RHCA myself (averaged only 1 exam/year, long story), let me tell you what "assumptions" I run into personally and professionally (many times) ... - "So, when do you plan on getting your RHCE?" (assuming "A" = "Administrator") - "We only hire RHCAs. Oh, I didn't realize there are only 300-something." (0 actually on-staff) - "I have a RHCA ... oh, yeah, I meant RHCSA" ("SA" = "System Administrator") So I don't think there's much of an "issue" that is specific to non-Red Hat certificate holders. ;) NOTE: Being a RHCA, I try to do my best to educate everyone on LPI. I do the same about Linux with Windows departments holding current Microsoft MCITP/MCSA (Server 2008) credentials as well. From: Alexandru Ionica <[email protected]> > I haven't been in the situation to be asked about an RHCA but I think > it would be of real value if LPI would also have an "top" level certification > Of course this is my opinion. I thought the LPIC-3 + specialties is already such? Although I leave it to Matt, Scott and others to consider additional titles for LPIC-3 + specialties, let's not overlook the fact of what LPIC-3 already offers. From: Alexandru Ionica <[email protected]> > Also it would also be a financially better alternative than to the > costs of RedHat exams. I understand Brian's point that it is a > big effort on RH's side to provide hands on exams, I see their > value (and I paid for one of those) but also at least for me it is > really expensive to follow that path(personally pay this) and I > also found it over the time difficult in convincing employers to > spend so much on training( and I have the feeling this is more > common in Europe than US) . That's really a poor argument, and not usually the issue. That's why I really dislike these "versus" comments and assumptions, because they are often way off-the-mark. Unless you've been through both, it's difficult to comment with knowledge. Although you may have sat RH302 or, now, EX200+EX300, scheduling post-RHCE is far more of the issue. There are over 100,000 RHCEs, but only thousands of RHCDS/RHCSS and hundreds of RHCAs. So you're talking maybe 1% of the same people scheduling EX333 to EX442 in comparison. Scheduling post-RHCE exams is the far bigger complaint, by far (myself included). Heck, it's not easy for Red Hat either, and they trying alternative options for exam-only events (without training) to make it easier. There are Pros/Cons to each approach. I bring them up when I talk LPI regularly. From: Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> > I haven't met anybody yet who was happy with the Novell exam machinery. I won't common on Novell for SuSE examination, but for the short-lived Microsoft 83 series ... A full-blown Windows desktop over VNC (yes, they used VNC, and didn't even bother to have a proper PKI for VPN/SSH) over a poor connection was intolerable. Thank God they give you 50 minutes, because what it takes less than 5 minutes on a physical system requires most of it. As I mentioned, mine (83-640 -- the only one ever offered) crashed and I lost 20 minutes before I could re-connect. Ironically, at the end of the exam, the survey asked me about all of my issues. I.e., Microsoft was well aware of the issues from the Beta. From: Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> > Way to go. Kick some a** ;^) We'll see. I ran through the 101/102/201/202 back in 2003 at lunch one day after another. I got approval to take Tuesday off to sit them again, plus I'm going to sit 301 on Thursday. Would have sat them all in one day, except no Vue testing center within 50 miles was open enough hours. But in any case, I just cut LPI some money, even if just a drop in the bucket (but enough that my wife saw my credit card statement and complained). ;) -- Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
