[lpi-discuss] Re: Linux Professional Institute changes
Recertification Policy -- arguing over the semantics,
not the effects
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Tue Dec 5 12:53:22 EST 2006
Luiz Carlos Ramos <lramos at procomp.com.br> wrote:
> The problem goes even far, because nobody can now state that even
> this new rule will be honoured, as somebody put somewhere in the
> list. For instance, a new flag may be added to the database
> signalling if the two-year recommendation was followed or not.
> I apologize to give this hint. ;-)
I think LPI has every right to indicate whether or not the exam as
been revised in whatever way it wishes. That's just arguing over
posturing and semantics, and I find it rather pathetic. Let's talk
about the _real_ effects.
Now there is a _legitimate_ complaint about LPI not consulting at
least the Alumni list. I've admitted that. But 90% of other things
I'm seeing here is just "drawing lines in the sand" while you "stick
your head in the sand."
While I don't like many vendor certs and have numerous complaints
about them, my _legitimate_ complaints are often drowned out by a
similar majority attitude. I.e., it's one thing to complain about
how Microsoft conducts its MCSE testing. But it's a completely other
issue when MSCEs on NT 4.0 complain they have to learn
ActiveDirectory. Duh! It's a major new feature!
LPI isn't doing this to "feed its coffers." It's doing it balance
the value of _new_ Linux capabilities tested against those who passed
the tests a decade earlier. You are a _perpetually_ certified LPIC
-- but yes, damn it -- you're going to have an asterisk next to your
cert saying whether or not you passed a Linux 2.0-era exam or
something newer. ;->
BTW, what's the logo usage? If its still allowed even for INACTIVE,
what's the problem? Those who don't care about the "facts" will just
want to see the logo, so they are satisfied.
> If the folks who are willing to take the exams happen to give up
> because of this, I think all of us, including LPI management, will
> feel the effects, as a decrease in the number of certifications
> issued by unit of time.
If people don't want to stop and value a certification program for
what it is, then that's _their_ fault.
In fact, as an Alumni, I do *NOT* want people who do *NOT* value
specialties, higher levels and recertification in a certification (or
licensing for that matter) program. They are the ones who bring
*DOWN* the value of a certification program, which affects *MY*
proposition to not only prospective employers, but peers as well.
People who obtain their LPIC-1 and leave it at that are _still_
perpetually LPIC-1 certified. But for them to just "sit with the
cert and never take an exam again," they are no longer the "same" as
those of us who actually recertify or obtain higher levels or
Again, it's about value.
And value from a company that does _not_ make money on training.
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution
More information about the lpi-discuss