On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:55:02PM -0600, Kenneth Burgener wrote: > Why are vendor neutral certifications such as LPI and Security+ > considered "no good"? The vendor specific certifications (e.g. RHCT, > Cisco, MCSE) may fetch a higher price, but I would think also having the > vendor neutral certifications help broaden your opportunities. Why lock > your self into only one vendor? I would also think that having these > less costly certs is also good certification preparation for some of the > ridiculously expensive certs.
Most vendor-neutral certs are no good, because there is no vendor to make sure they are up-to-date, reliable, and real-world. Honestly, LPI and Linux+ tests you about floppy drives and old kernel versions that haven't been used in decades. Further, most vendor-neutral certs don't provide hands-on training nor testing. They're study on your own, then fill out a multiple choice exam. Also, I wouldn't say MCSE fetches a higher price. My understanding of that certification is that everybody and their dog has the cert, and it doesn't mean much in the real world. While the RHCT/RHCE are harder to achieve, so there's actual value if you find an administrator who holds those certs. I understand the Cisco certs to be the same way. Long story short, most vendor-neutral certs, and many vendor certs are low-hanging fruit. They don't mean much in the long term. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */