[lpi-discuss] Re: Linux Professional Institute
changes Recertification Policy
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Thu Dec 7 11:05:13 EST 2006
Em Qua, 2006-12-06 às 09:30 +0100, Karl Schock escreveu:
> As far as I know (from the spare figures the LPI has published) only
> one of ten "normal" candidates who has reached L1 later go on for L2.
> If that is true then it is "normal" to reach L1 and stop.
> And IMHO it is ok to reach L1 and stop. Not everyone can/must reach
> for gold (so don't push all of us with changes in your certification
The counter-rhetoric then becomes, "why doesn't LPI differentiate my ten-years newere LSB4.0 credentials versus old, pre-LSB 4.0?"
People can continue to "draw lines in the sand" and defend their position WITHOUT REGARD to the position on people OUTSIDE LPI who actually differ with that viewpoint.
Furthermore, the complaints of "decertification" are simply NOT true!
I would argue 9 out of 10 complaints of other certifications is the REMOVAL of the title and logo.
That means there is a difference between resumes.
But with LPI, there is NO REVOKE of your right to the title or logo.
That means when you send your resume to HR along with me sending mine, THEY ARE THE SAME!
It's only when someone technical, who knows the state of Linux in, say, 2000-2002 versus, say, 2007+ *MAY* check if our certifications are "ACTIVE" or not.
5-years is COMMON PRACTICE among non-profit/government licensing agencies, not for revenue, but the VALUE of the certification!
That includes engineering, law and medicine.
At some point, and everyone was foolish to think otherwise given the ORIGINAL STATEMENTS in the program (sorry, even *I* saw it), LPI would have more tracks, exams and specialties and would have to find a "common ground" to serve the interests of ALL candidates, past and current.
That's why the ORIGINAL program SET DOWN IN STONE that you will NEVER be "decertified."
And anyone who thinks this is about "profit" needs to realize that TRAINING is what OTHER "vendor independent" organizations make money on.
If you'd rather LPI do that, I think you really don't realize that would DESTROY LPI.
Now I'm professionally going to PUSH DAMN HARD to get Scott & co. to release a term in the certification policy to GUARANTEE PERPETUAL USE of the title and logo.
In fact, I'm going to make it my PRIMARY OBJECTIVE at the next, scheduled SAC that takes place in the US (whereever it is, I'll be there! ;-).
That's what 90% of you really dislike about other programs, because you merely use that title to "get past stupid HR filters."
I haven't seen ANYTHING in the terms that change that, and a clarification in a term would go a LONG WAY towards "setting it in stone."
With that said, "rhetoric aside," would that SATISFY most of you?
Or is it still "not enough"? Please SOUND OFF "yea" or "nay" so I know whether or not I should even bother?
BTW, one thing I do NOT respect is the argument I'm seeing from those here who make money from training. I've seen too many people complaining about "loss of revenue" because you complain "less people will value LPI" and "they will look to another program." To those trainers, I have 2 statements:
1. If LPI changes its profit model to training, YOU'RE TOAST!
2. Your stance is clearly biased as YOU are clearly MORE REVENUE FOCUSED on your stance than LPI's!
3. YOU should be educating potential candidates in WHY LPI IS BETTER (refer them to my blog entry if you wish) because it is not only not vendor-aligned, but NOT a program built by, for and with TRAINING REVENUE in mind.
I'm sorry trainers, but SEPARATE your "revenue incentives" and please take a more "impartial" view of this.
There HAS TO BE A COMPROMISE HERE, and most of what I've seen is a lot of single-viewpoint arguments.
And I'm sorry, trainers, please watch it!
From: Luiz Carlos Ramos
> conclusion #2: even doing nothing may be better than to engage in
> continued education, e.g., if one feel that the benefit would be small
> enough to offset the costs, and there are no other good options
I keep hearing the terms "training costs" and "loss of value," so let me change the perspective.
Please show me ANOTHER certification program that PUBLICLY LISTS ALL objectives?!
And with those objectives, ALL relevant concepts, commands, files, etc...
Virtually NONE! Now why is that?
Before I answer that, yet another perspective.
If you are Linux experienced, preparation for Exams 101, 102, 201 and 202 can be accomplished by a mere REVIEW of the objectives!
Unlike virtually ANY other program (and I've taken 40 exams), I don't have to go off and research the "vendor answer" or get the "official training materials with the answers," even though I've got 10 years of Cisco experience, been supporting NT 3.1 since beta through Longhorn betas, Novell since 2.0 through 4/NDS on-ward to 6.5 w/eDirectory.
Other vendor and vendor-independent, but training-focused programs do NOT publish even the "outlines" or "slides" of their training materials that would MATCH what LPI discloses.
Which is why "Training" - and the common arguments I've seen here - only apply to those INEXPERIENCED with Linux - unlike other certification programs.
And even for the "inexperienced," self-study of Linux, against the EXTENSIVE DETAIL in the EXACT OBJECTIVES over months is BETTER and, more appropriate yet, BETTER REFLECTS the "real world" candidate and FELLOW LPIC PEER I WANT!
So maybe instead of arguing over "alleged profit motives" or "people being turned off to LPIC" or other comments, we should not only look, but appreciate and promote WHY LPI is different?
I know that's a "conflict of interest" for some of you trainers (even if you don't want to admit it), but some of the commentary I've seen here is WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND BIASED!
And YOUR comments are the ones "devaluing" - UNJUSTLY - the LPIC program, which is self-defeating.
Now I've admitted that:
A) LPI made a "poor decision" not to make this decision with "transparency," and
B) We NEED a CLARIFICATION on the perpetual title/logo use
Instead of "bitching," *I* - clearly an opinionated outsider, but I have taken 40 *OTHER* certification exams (and hold 22 other certifications) so I KNOW the level of BS out there in comparison (hence why I defend LPI) - am trying to find a "common ground" acceptable to all.
Let's NOT drop into the common rhetoric used against other programs.
Until LPI starts making money off of training, they really ARE *THE* GEM of the certification industry.
Even if its motives aren't the same of some of you trainers, who would be far more profitable partnering with someone outside of Linux (as Red Hat does not have partners, and the CompTIA Linux+ doesn't have much of an Alumni base).
Yes, I KNOW what you trainers mean when you say "we do it for fun" because there's really *NO* other option in the Linux world for you but LPI.
Just don't let your agenda cloud the REALITY that LPI's efforts are actually benign. ;-)
Sent from my Treo
More information about the lpi-discuss