[lpi-discuss] Re: General comments on LPI levels -- LPIC-1 will NEVER be Linux+ (so help me God)

Ian Shields ishields at us.ibm.com
Wed Sep 14 20:56:08 EDT 2005

I have to agree. Ther eis only one issue, whether 1 represents the top 
level or the bottom level. I think 0 always represents the bottom level if 
we consider only the non-negative integers. I woudl add that in *my* 
experience, I have yet to see a series of courses where one takes higher 
numbered course before lower numbered ones in the same subject, so I'm 
happy with LPIC-1 representing a lesser qualificaton than LPIC-2 and then 
LPIC-3.. If this actually occurs, or is common, please speak up. 
Otherwise, let's stick with the nomenclature of LPIC-1, LPIC-2 and LPIC-3 
as the primary LPI levels, with the (possible) understanding that 
appropriate words may be applied as may be deemed necessary in a 
particular market.

Ian Shields Ph.D.
Linux  Technologist, ISV & Developer Relations
IBM Corp
Research Triangle Park, NC
ishields at us.ibm.com

Jon Hall wrote on 09/14/2005 06:01:51 PM:

> mark.miller at lpi.org said:
> >  I don't really look down on the "Junior" label as much. Still better 
> > would help marketing efforts. 
> In an international market, having a numbered designator is better 
> than having a
> name.  If you wanted to have both, that is fine.  But it is a lot easier 
> a non-english speaking person to compare and deal with numbers than the 
> abstract names.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.lpi.org/pipermail/lpi-discuss/attachments/20050914/694bc682/attachment-0003.html

More information about the lpi-discuss mailing list