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."

Comments

How is 'System Engineer' title qualified?

[P_Simm]

This question is really about all such 'certified blahblah engineer' titles given out, including MS. Do they give out these certifications to anyone who passes their tests, regardless of whether or not the person is actually a professional engineer?

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?

Re:linux and compaq?!?

[JDax]

Actually, that might be true for the desktop PCs (strange integrated sound chips, winmodems etc.)

Not true! &nbsp 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. &nbsp I might recommend you avoid the Deskpros (which are "more" proprietary) but the Presarios make great Linux boxen! &nbsp 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! &nbsp ;-) &nbsp At work, I have a Compaq Proliant 6000, dual PII/200 w/256MB RAM and 5, 9.1GB hot swaps (2 in RAID0 and 3 in RAID5) running HAPPILY with a SmartArray SCSI controller on Red Hat 6.1 using the 2.2.12-20 SMP kernel (and SMP works just fine thank you)!

Go for it folks - works fine.

Training versus Education

[slk]

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.

Re:Training versus Education

[bubbasatan]

Your point does have a certain amount of merit. The Linux world certainly does not need a bunch of "paper admins," ala the "paper MCSEs" bungling a good product. However, ASE training is fairly in depth and, IMHO, far superior to the value of some other certifications. I think, though, that you have overstated the case about "creative problem solving" etc. Those people who are inherently good at tackling problems can benefit immensely from exposure to the knowledge and hands on experience offered by ASE training. Creativity and the ability to look at things from a non-traditional perspective, as well as other "skills" which are difficult to quantify, are not learned methodologies in the first place. On the other hand, those people who fulfill their IT duties in automoton fashion may or may not benefit from the training, but chances are they are not the kind of people you'd want to hire anyway. You have to ask yourself whether you would rather have a good problem solver with the technical knowledge on which to build solutions, or a good problem solver who cannot figure out how to clear the NVRAM on a Prosignia or how to recreate the system partition so he can access the BIOS or a Deskpro. Again, we should not overly value a paper certification or someone who is supposedly trained, because monkeys can be trianed too, but neither should we discount the potential utility of a company like Compaq sending Linux professionals out to work with their hardware and software.