Slashdot Mirror
Linux Training from Compaq
LanceTaylor writes, "Compaq has developed two Linux Integration and Performance courses, one for the Intel architecture and one for the Alpha processor based machines. The first public classes are going to be held at the end of April.
Descriptions of the courses can be found here for the Intel course and here for the Alpha course.
These courses are being added to the Compaq Accredited Systems Engineer (ASE) program."
Nonsense. How is "Compaq Certified System Engineer" any different of a usage than "Clorox Certified Domestic Engineer"? Domestic Engineer has been a euphemism for housewife for decades. Just like Sanitation Engineer is a euphemism for garbageman.
NSPE has the actual "Engineer" titles that they regulate, but IIRC, the most traditional usage (the guy who drives a train) isn't one of them either. Just because somebody starts certifying pastry chefs as "Dessert Architects" doesn't make them anything more than a "certified" pastry chef... so what's the problem? At some point in the future, it wouldn't surprise me if the psychiatric profession, in a fit of marketroid-inspired frenzy, goes out and rebrands themselves as "Attitude Engineers". *g*
Now, that isn't to say that improper usage CAN'T create confusion, just that it generally doesn't (especially in the case of "Domestic Engineer", which may trace its etymology back to 1950s sitcoms). The counterexample that comes to mind is that someone colossally stupid, who has never heard of the company with the world's largest market cap, might mistake someone who shows up with a piece of paper saying "_blank_ Certified _blank_ Engineer" and a logo that looks like the Golden Gate Bridge for a real Civil Engineer, but that's even pushing it....
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
This is because a server has to work with whatever an IT department wants to put on it, whether that be Windows NT, Windows 2000, Netware, Linux, SCO Unix, *BSD, Solaris x86 or something else.
I researched this (the hardware support) last summer, when I worked with installing Compaq Proliant servers in a pretty NT-only IT department. I wanted to know if there was a good technical reason why I couldn't put Linux on these nice machines. It turned out that there wasn't. It was just political...
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
These are probably the same guys that did (do?) the Ultrix training... Teaching one BSDish Unix isn't all so difficult from teaching another, just bone up on the Sys V-isms of Linux, and you've got a whole fleet of Linux trainers in no time flat.
darren
Cthulhu for President!
(darren)
Absolutely right, but don't forget that IT is a very young industry - about 20 yrs in the case of PCs. The standards and mechanisms for enforcing those standards that exist in industries such as architecture or (mechanical) engineering just don't exist yet in IT. Some day they will, and we will see incompetent sysadmins, DBAs and developers being struck off their respective registers. However, until the rate of change in the IT industry slows down to something that society and government can actually deal with, we won't have any of that. This helps explain the many phenomena such as paper certifications, cowboy consultants etc. that we're all familiar with.
On the subject of this Compaq certification, Compaq guys tend to be very good at installation, optimization etc. on their own hardware. If you happen to have hundreds of their servers, and tens of thousands of their desktops (as we do), then that specific knowledge is not just nice to have, it's essential. Someone else commented that a Compaq server is just a "big Intel box" - right, but that's like saying that a Ferrari is "just a fast car". I wouldn't want Joe from the local fix-anything garage tinkering with my Ferrari, and if you're serious about servers, you don't let just anyone play with them either. Compaq are heavily into custom hardware and management extensions, which work extremely well, but do have to be learnt. The day you can run SmartStart (Compaq's guided server setup routine) for Linux will be a big step forward for corporate acceptance.
...a certification my company , a beltway bandit, might consider. (For those outside the US, this is the term for a company that makes a living by sucking off the federal government's tit). My employer is a typical example; very MS-centric, very few opportunities for other platforms -- I'm the only Mac-specific tech in the enire place and I know the most about Linux ...which isn't all that much ...yet. Maybe since this one mentions the name "Compaq" they'll think it's more legitimate than the RHCE or LCP tests.
Too bad they won't pay for me to travel to Houston, but oh well.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
UNIX cert is a joke. Corporations are just crazy over it though. ISO9000(9001)is something companies brag about having a higher level of. You could ISO9001 shooting yourself in the foot as long as it was properly documented. The certification is only as good as the test is. Look at drivers licenses; there are still a ton of horrible drivers on the road. MCSE is another perfect example. Most of them can't even tie their shoes unless MS had a program that would do it for them. The cost of these classes are ridiculous. I could buy a book or just rtfm for $30 or for free. Look at the way the RH has a special class just on security. If you have to take that class on that you've already lost.
This applies just as easily to the computer world as it does to mechanical or civil engineering. No one in the civil engineering world gets the title of 'engineer' by simply doing a really good job in the workplace for some set number of years! You get accredited training, you register, you work under another engineer for a few years (5 where I live anyway).
I'm not saying that everyone working as a professional in the IT industry should do this! I've already heard of professional IT associations starting up for programmers, and I think it's a great idea. The criteria they set can be whatever they deem sufficient to allow their members to hold professional respect and status. Such an IT professional society will NOT have the right to call their members 'engineers' though, unless they fall under the approval of the already established engineering associations.
Call them 'certified Compaq technicians', or 'certified Compaq solutions providers' (MS's funky moniker), I don't care. But don't throw around the name 'engineer' after someone completes some month-long course on how to sysadmin a bunch of Compaqs or something. It belittles those who have worked hard to get a MUCH more complete grasp of the computing industry, and have thus earned the title 'engineer'.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
Although I do not feel that Compaq is the best PC manufacturer, I am quite pleased that Compaq is offering Linux training as part of their ASE program. Having known a few Compaq ASE folks, they are generally very knowledgable about Compaq products and how to make them work. It will be nice to have a few Compaq Linux specialist types out there. With companies like Compaq and IBM (maybe they'll offer some Linux training, too) supporting Linux, maybe the mainstream computer user will begin to understand that Linux is for real. Even Dell has been offering PCs with Red Hat for quite some time now. I am curious to see if others will follow the lead in offering officially sanctioned Linux training. Working with Linux on an Alpha would be kinda cool, too. Like the license plate Compaq gave me for my car says, "Linux Live Free or Die"
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
That's some pretty expensive wallpaper.
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
I'm not starting a whiney CS-can't-teach-software-engineering complaint, don't get me wrong. I think that particular debate is pretty useless. But actually running around with some piece of paper saying you are an 'engineer' is a different matter. Engineering is a profession which is entrusted with enforcing standards, and with allowing only fully trained and tested individuals to use the title.
I'm not going to try and expound big reasons why the title 'engineer' is sacred or anything ... to keep it practical, it's simply ILLEGAL to fraudulantly claim you are an engineer (just as it's illegal to falsely claim you're a doctor, or a police officer). So are these 'system engineer' titles only given to actual professional engineers or just anyone who can pass a quick test? And if so, are they at least getting some shit from professional engineering associations?
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
Not true!   I have *3* Compaq Presarios:
- Presario 4508 running Red Hat 5.2
- Presario 5070, running Mandrake 6.5
- Presario 1267 notebook, running SuSE 6.3
I also have a Presario 5360 running NetBSD 1.4.1.   I might recommend you avoid the Deskpros (which are "more" proprietary) but the Presarios make great Linux boxen!   The sound on these babies are ESSs (either 1688/89s, 1868/69s, Solo-1), the videos are generally SiS 530s (notebook is a Neomagic 128XD).I researched this (the hardware support) last summer, when I worked with installing Compaq Proliant servers in a pretty NT-only IT department. I wanted to know if there was a good technical reason why I couldn't put Linux on these nice machines. It turned out that there wasn't. It was just political...
It is political!  
Go for it folks - works fine.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
While I realize this topic has been brought up before, remember to step back and look at what you're reading. This isn't about any new technical merits or ideas, nor is it about education. It's about training people to handle the rote administrative tasks with Linux. This means things like machine installs, basic configuration, etc.
What this does NOT mean is people who have been through these training programs are any good at creative problem solving. To deal with architecture, complex problems, etc. it takes a lot more than vendor training.
This is just giving us many more marginal Unix/Linux admins, which we really don't need. What we need are more GOOD admins. These "training programs" should start calling themselves LCSE, because that's about what they are. Anybody who's good enough at thinking problems through, problem solving, etc. to be a really good admin doesn't NEED this kind of training.
ERROR: Null