Novell's Certified Linux Engineer

AEnertia writes "Novell have been quick in moving ahead with their recent aquisition of SuSE. I was browsing their site when I found this page describing their new certification (CLE) under their certifications programs. Looks like they are positioning their well respected certification program for their newest asset."

Comments

I just hope..

[DaphunK]

That this certification is worth more than my SCO Master ACE. Cheers,

Re:I just hope..

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that the official SCO courses would make you a Certified Unix Network Technician. Certainly I'm sure Darl McBride is one.

Re:I just hope..

[sharkey]

SCO Master ACE

Not ACE too? Will ACE no longer be "the place with the helpful hardware man"? Will I only have Lowes for advice?

Unique test for this cert...

[bc90021]

From the Novell site:

the test

The Novell Practicum test for the Novell Certified Linux Engineer (Novell CLE) will require you to prove your Novell Nterprise Linux Services knowledge in a "real life" setting. Your knowledge of both Linux and Novell Nterprise Linux Services will be tested.

The practicum is basically a remote connection to a live server bank with Linux installed. Using the remote access session, you will be given a scenario with tasks to complete. These tasks will include configuring Novell Services on Linux, performing basic Linux tasks, and may even get into some troubleshooting.

You will need to perform these tasks just as you would in a real environment. You will be evaluated automatically on each of the servers and will you receive a pass or fail exam result. The length of the exam is estimated to be about two hours.

There is no "written" test anticipated at this time.

For once, there is nothing written, and you actually have to demonstrate proficiency! No more "wannabes" (*cough*MCSE*cough*) merley memorising and getting the Certification.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[bluenova]

You know, the cisco testing has simulations now as part of the test. Gives you 3 routers and situation, you have to set them up as requested, make sure they work, etc.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[Homology]

For once, there is nothing written, and you actually have to demonstrate proficiency! No more "wannabes" (*cough*MCSE*cough*) merley memorising and getting the Certification.

Since you are evaluated automatically by the servers, in what way is this fundamentally different from a written multiple choice test? There is no human on the other side to whom you are required to EXPLAIN the REASONS for what you are doing.

The Novell Practicum (oh, well, at least it sounds academic) is just another example of this peculiar US degree industry.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[spektr]

Since you are evaluated automatically by the servers, in what way is this fundamentally different from a written multiple choice test?

In a multiple choice test you have 2 to 10 possibilites to choose from. In a real world setting your choices are practically unlimited.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[Homology]

In a multiple choice test you have 2 to 10 possibilites to choose from. In a real world setting your choices are practically unlimited.

You miss the point. It's not the number of choices as such that's the issue, but that the REASONING behind the choices is not evaluated. In a real world you have to use your problems solving skills to solve unfamiliar problems. Multiple choice type of educations given by for-profit-companies with tests corrected by computer programs does not foster or encourage problem solving skills.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[zap_branigan]

I was one of the first 200 people(got a nice leather jacket as a gift) to receive Novell's CDE Certification. There were 2 written tests along with a 2 hour practicum in which you remote into a 5 server-farm setup at Novell and fix a lot of broken shit(probably left over by an MCNE). These lab tests definitely seperate the men from the boys. I had NDS experience since it came out with Novell v4 and I can tell you no matter how many books you read on NDS if you did not have experience there is no way you could have passed. The servers and NDS are messed up in such a way that fixing one problem may make you unable to fix the remaining--so you really had to know what was going on, and which problem to tackle first.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[spektr]

It's not the number of choices as such that's the issue, but that the REASONING behind the choices is not evaluated.

I agree that it makes no difference if there are 2 or 20 answers I have to choose from. But I think it is a different thing if I have to give my own answer (solving the problem without hints, i.e. possible answers to choose from).

Multiple choice type of educations given by for-profit-companies with tests corrected by computer programs does not foster or encourage problem solving skills.

I agree to that, too. But as far as I understand it, the program recognizes "solution works" and "solution doesn't work". It doesn't test if the answer matches a set of possible answers. So in my opinion, this isn't a multiple choice test.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[Proudrooster]

The Redhat test is harder than this. What is this sissy stuff about configuring Novell Services and performing basic Linux tasks.

I was excited when I first heard about the Novell CLE, but it looks pretty watered down. The Red Hat (RHCE) test is 6 hours and includes troubleshooting, a written test, and configuring services with advanced administrative tasks.

IMHO Novell should start out a lot tougher. They can always relax the program, but if they set the initial bar too low and anyone can obtain the certification then it's tarnished forever. I agree the MCSE is definately something a chimp could be trained to pass. The only certs I really have respect for are OCM (Oracle Certified Master), CCIE (Cisco Internet Engineer), and the RHCE (Red Hat Certified Engineer). If the final test isn't performance based you will never get a measure of the skill of the individual taking the test.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[Guppy06]

Of course, part of the simulation is the built-in help featuers (command completion, etc.) as well as graying out all of the commands that don't work in that particular simulation. If you're vaguely familiar with *nix CLIs and are able to tell an IP address from an IRQ number, you can get through those simulations easily enough.

Re:Unique test for this cert...

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell has always had an M ceries of exams, for "master".

I'm sure there will me an MCLE, and the test will come in 5-10 parts, each two hours long.

Yikes

[Faust7]

Novell's Certified Linux Engineer

Just one? Might be an uphill battle for Novell then...

Re:Yikes

[justsomebody]

You might be really wrong.

If this one is high level enough, then it might be good. Problem of all exams is that they aren't hard enough and practically anybody can pass them

I went to RHCE, but I was really dissapointed with low level of knowledge to pass the exam. My M$ exams (fact for anybody who wants to pass them: just think commercialy M$ positive and you'll pass, absolute no knowledge needed just economical common sense) are pure need and if it is possible I rather shut up than say that I have them. Unfortunate that's a bussiness must have for me.

Re:Yikes

[dagnabit]

I think the parent post was making an inference that there was only a single Novell certified Engineer... the possessive indication in the quoted phrase is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as the sole Certified Engineer that works for Novell...

Re:Yikes

[justsomebody]

Still, Novell is Novell. As far as I suspect they will provide very (console) similiar interface for Linux Novell services. So one for few underlaying platforms is suitable.

They should just make it hard so not anyone but knowledgeable can do it. Or everybody should start having X certified Genius exams to separate better from common, but I guess not even one company has some interest in doing that.

Re:Yikes

[wowbagger]

Just one? Might be an uphill battle for Novell then...

There can be only one!

Now, hold still while I chop off your head....

Although the aftermath of a battle sure is hard on the servers, what with all the lightning and such....

First thing you see...

[MikeCapone]

So the first thing that you see when you go to the Novell page is a guy laying on his back, arms cross behind his head.

Are they saying that we are lazy?

Re:First thing you see...

[Kierthos]

No, no, it signifies all the extra free time you'll have from not having to deal with the "secure" Windows servers....

Kierthos

Re:First thing you see...

[shaitand]

yes, they are right.

Re:First thing you see...

[peragrin]

Yes we are lazy, that is why we use linux. you set it up once, and it works, it works till you take it down. none of the I'm bored so I think I will crash stuff.

Re:First thing you see...

[jonadab]

> Are they saying that we are lazy?

Well, there's lazy and then there's lazy. Some people are lazy enough to
put out the effort needed to learn how to set things up properly so that
they run themselves and we can kick back a bit. This is the virtue of
laziness.

If you're too lazy to learn the proper skills to make things work that way,
so that you are constantly troubleshooting preventable problems that crop up
because of flaws in your setup, that is False Laziness.

If you read the camel book, you will also learn about the distinction between
the virtues of Impatience and Hubris and their corresponding antitheses, False
Impatience and False Hubris.

SCO certification

[Anonymous Coward]

I was checking the SCO website and came across their "SCO certified IP lawyer" certification webpage.

What do you guys think? Worth getting?

Re:SCO certification

[iggymanz]

Your sentences are far too well thought out & constructed. If you are to spew a steady stream of SCOX solicitor duckspeak, incoherence, bullcrap & FUD, I would suggest intoxication or a partial lobotomy.

Re:SCO certification

[Anonymous Coward]

The granparent is enquiring about joining the legal team, not becoming CEO.

Re:SCO certification

[mackman]

My employer paid for my SCLE (SCO Certified Linux Engineer) and the test went something like this:

1. You have a network of 90 desktop Linux PCs, 4 dual-procressor Linux workgroup servers, and 1 16-way Linux enterprise server. How much do you pay SCO?

a) $142,000
b) $62,000,000
c) $118,000,000
d) All of the above

Re:SCO certification

[Anonymous Coward]

nah... lobotomy isn't necessary...
No need to cut something that isn't there.

Re:SCO certification

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCLE must be invalid these days since SCO changed their licensing scheme to make it simpler. Here are the terms:

"SCO has simplified it's licensing fees in order to serve you better. Simply fill in the following questions:
(1) How much money did you make this year?_______
(2) How much did you pay in taxes?__________
To calculate your licensing fee for this year, simply subtract the number in step (2) from the number in step (1). Please send this amount to "SCO Looting Company" immediately. Thank you for being a loyal SCO Linux customer."

The Price of Doing Certs

[Bob_Robertson]

Ah, the endless loop. When employed, certs are not needed, when unemployed they are not affordable...

Could-a, should-a, would-a, didn't.

Bob-

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[iggymanz]

And the latest fad, having to work for a company for at least 18 months after they pay for your certification training, or you owe it back to them. And this place I'm talking to wants to have me take 4 or 5 certification courses at thousands each. Any of you remember the old movie called I think "angel city" about a southern "labor camp city", where everyone was made to be so indebted to the company for supplies, food & shelter that they could never work off the debt and couldn't leave??.....

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[mr_lithic]

Yeah but who will stay in the same job forever?(especially in IT). Certs provide mobility and a bit of paper that gets you into an interview.

Hopefully the CLE will be given more credit than the CNE! Andrew CNE

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[Anonymous Coward]

You earn sixteen certs, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[drinkypoo]

I'd want in my contract an exit method where if they canned me for any reason other than a breach of law that I wouldn't pay a dime. Of course that might make them disinclined to hire me, but the fact is that they can train you and then fire you if they so desire. It makes sense to require you to work there for a while, but if they can shitcan you, then it's a losing proposition.

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[unshaven23]

Ah, the endless loop. When employed, certs are not needed, when unemployed they are not affordable...

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Simply walk up to your boss and have the following conversation:

You: "I was talking to a customer and he was wondering if we have any certification to prove that we are as good as we claim to be."
Boss: "Does anyone at our company have certification?"
You: "Employee X has Cisco, and Employee Y has MSCE, but the rest of us are all uncertified."
Boss: "Hmmmm, that should be good enough."
You: "You know, a few weeks back I read about LPI certification, and a lot of our customers are showing intrest in linux as of late. I checked out the example exams and they're not that difficult. It might be handy to have that in our company as well."
Boss: "Let me think about it."

Then stay on his good side, and make regular inquiries about the certification. If all goes well, you should be able to enroll for the exam in about a week or 2.

This gives you two advantages:

1. You are less likely to be fired next crisis, as the company has invested in your certification, and that certifaction goes with you if they throw you out.
2. If you should get fired, you can always mention it on your resume, as many employers love the free certified staffmember to improve the company image.

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[jonadab]

> Ah, the endless loop. When employed, certs are not needed

I would think that if you've been employed for a decent amount of time in
a relevant job, you wouldn't need the certs afterward either, unless you're
fired for incompetence or something. Last I checked, job experience was
worth a good deal more than certs. (A degree is nice to have too...)

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[AJWM]

when unemployed they are not affordable..

Depends whether you need the training or just the cert test -- although granted some tests cost more than others.

I'd been unemployed for a while when I put out the $300 or so for the two tests for a Solaris sysadmin cert. I'm primarily a developer, not a sysadmin, but I've been working with Unix for 20 years, and with Sun gear since the Sun 3 series, and lord knows I've had to admin enough systems! (And I've been an operator on big iron back in the day.) That didn't land me the sysadmin job I'd heard about through a friend, but it did get me (a few months later) the sysadmin job I have now. (Total cost of training: $50 for a book with test-yourself CD, $100 for a spare box to mess with Solaris on, connect time to download Solaris -- plus of course the 20 years working with 'nix systems and the several years of running a Linux-based server room on the side.)

Yeah $450 (total) is a chunk of change when you're unemployed, but it paid for itself real fast once I got a job.

(On the flip side, the $150 I spent to write the Java Programmer cert test hasn't paid itself back yet. Maybe I'll spring for the J2EE Architect cert. Two exams plus a project. What fun.)

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[AJWM]

if you've been employed for a decent amount of time in a relevant job, you wouldn't need the certs afterward either,

That's the catch, especially in the current job market. If you've been in the field for a few years, and you're interested in it, you can probably do a variety of jobs that may not exactly match your current job title or job description. See my other post -- I'm primarily a software developer but I've got plenty of sysadmin experience. Ditto with various programming languages and systems.

Now, for old farts like us (who may tend to have a tougher time anyway getting a new job), the choices are either submit a 10-page resume to make sure everything is covered (not a good idea, it won't be read), or carefully custom tailor a resume for each position applied for (not a bad idea, but a lot of work and it may not adequately convey just how much you know), or go get certs in the stuff you know but isn't reflected well by your resume.

I did the latter, and had two resumes -- one for software development and one for systems admin.

Re:The Price of Doing Certs

[feronti]

In some states, this is illegal. In Michigan, for example, such clauses run afoul of laws on indentured servitude. Not many people know this, however, so they're rarely challenged.

Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Twid]

Novell had a Internet track to the CNE years ago, back in the days when Netscape Enterprise Web Server ran on Netware. The classes were horrible and I feel bad for anyone that paid to take them.

It appears from the website that this is just a single 5-day course on Novell Nterprise Services for Linux (Netware File and Print and Directory Services running on Linux), not a course on SuSE or Ximian. They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.

It's kind of a stretch that they are calling this a Certified Linux Engineer, since there is no actual Linux training involved, just training on Novell's product running on Linux. In fact, the course material says that you should know Linux before taking the course.

So, unfortunately this seems like yet another empty certification, and shame on Novell for calling someone a Certified Linux Engineer when all they did was take a 5-day course on one of Novell's Linux products.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[GigsVT]

It's kind of a stretch that Microsoft cranks out people called "certified software engineers" too.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[iggymanz]

Since the only *real* purpose of a cert is to give companies "good vibes" about you or get your foot in the door, who cares what the real training is? A person has good troubleshooting & admin skills, or they don't. Other than that, if your cert is printed on absorbent paper you could wipe your ass with it. I've worked with too many people who had more certs than Seymour Cray who were dumber & more useless than a bag of rocks. Anyway, if Novell/SuSE takes off, having this cert could open door for you, and it's then served its only purpose.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The other *real* value of certs is for Novell's sales channel. When Novell sells NDS to someone, they generally have some Novell Partner firm come in and do the network design, etc. So, Novell needs to sell people on the value of these firms by claiming their engineers have gotten the proper training, etc.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Twid]

I agree than some PHBs (or maybe Pointy Haired People Who Hire Consultants) are clueless when it comes to what certs are good and bad, I do thing that in the IT industry people generally know the quality certification from the low-quality ones. I think most people now know that there are a lot of Paper MCSEs and CNEs out there, and they don't look for just that cert when hiring a consultant.

So, the problem with this certification from Novell is that it's called a Certified Linux Engineer, but it doesn't require any knowledge at all of the two Linux distributions that they now own. Also, this is really just one five-day class on a Novell product, not a whole certification track, so it kind of cheapens the entire value of the CxE certification for the whole CNE installed base.

So, even as a door-opener, I think this cert is badly positioned.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[cpthowdy]

What I want to know is how you have taken the class when it isn't being offered until February. I mean, you talk like you already went through the class...

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Krondor]

They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.

The Parent poster is wrong on so many levels.

1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.

2.) You don't have to take any courses whatsoever, but you might want to if you don't think you can pass the exam with self study. The exam is just that you can sign up and take it with no course requirement.

It appears the poster has confused this with the Novell Certified Linux Engineer study course, and his general impression is that he has some kind of anger at the lack of developement behind Novell's certification proposal.

I think this is a very good start for Novell, and requiring your LPI Level 1 means that you have the basic skillset already. They don't need to be redundant in their testing, and this allows for an expected baseline of proficiency. I do think that RHCEs should definitely not have to have their LPI Level 1 as well though, and I hope they change that in the future.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[jonadab]

> It's kind of a stretch that they are calling this a Certified Linux Engineer

I thought it was Novell Certified Linux Engineer. Now, I suppose you could
read that as Novell-Certified Linux Engineer (i.e., a Linux Engineer who
is Certified by Novell), but without the hyphen the natural reading IMO is
that Novell and Certified and Linux are all adjectives modifying the noun
Engineer. i.e., this certification is not about Linux per se but rather the
combination of Novell and Linux (or, more particularly, Novell running on
Linux). Seems reasonable to me. There are other certs out there if you just
want to be certified to work with Linux systems in general. This is a Novell
certification, so of course it relates to Novell systems.

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Twid]

1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.

No they don't. From the FAQ on the linked web page from the story:
Novell recommends that you take the courses that prepare you for the Linux Professional Institute Certification (LPIC) level 1 to obtain the baseline knowledge that will best ready you for the course on Novell Services.

It appears the poster has confused this with the Novell Certified Linux Engineer study course, and his general impression is that he has some kind of anger at the lack of developement behind Novell's certification proposal.

Huh? This story *is* about the Novell Certified Linux Engineer course and certification. I think you're the confused one. It clearly states in the FAQ on the Novell website that LPI certification and classes are not required for the class or the test, but they are recommended.

You should check your facts before you call someone "wrong on so many levels." Again, my point is that Novell is calling someone a "Certified Linux Engineer" when all they are really testing the person on is their ability to install Novell's Linux-based products on Linux. It's kind of like Oracle teaching someone to install Oracle on Windows 2003 and calling the certification the "Oracle Certified Windows 2003 Engineer".

Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago

[Krondor]

1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.

No they don't. From the FAQ on the linked web page from the story:
Novell recommends that you take the courses that prepare you for the Linux Professional Institute Certification (LPIC) level 1 to obtain the baseline knowledge that will best ready you for the course on Novell Services.

Yes they do, the FAQ simply is stating that they recommend you take a course to pass your LPI Requirement before taking the CLE. I've been to the Novell/IBM Linux Seminar and they specifically said that they DO require the LPI Level 1 to be eligable for the CLE. If you had read more then the FAQ you would have known this.

Huh? This story *is* about the Novell Certified Linux Engineer course and certification. I think you're the confused one. It clearly states in the FAQ on the Novell website that LPI certification and classes are not required for the class or the test, but they are recommended.

I am not confused, the LPI is most definitely required for the CLE test, but not for the class (though it is recommended). It clearly states this in the link I have posted above, and Novell's staff will verify this if you inquire for additional verification.

You should check your facts before you call someone "wrong on so many levels." Again, my point is that Novell is calling someone a "Certified Linux Engineer" when all they are really testing the person on is their ability to install Novell's Linux-based products on Linux. It's kind of like Oracle teaching someone to install Oracle on Windows 2003 and calling the certification the "Oracle Certified Windows 2003 Engineer".

First off, you don't eat your feedback. Secondly, I am not wrong as I've attested to, and finally it is not synonymous with your analogy because the LPI is supposed to guarantee a base proficiency that they are adding to. If that isn't the case it's a failure on the part of the LPI and not Novell. I'd like to close by saying I'm sorry if you took offense, but I do think the Slashdot readers deserve factual information, and I tried to make the point that you had been confused between the test and the study course.

Re:Novell even more retarded than SUN or Red Hat

[Anonymous Coward]

..exactly..

Wow!

[bziman]

$2,000 for a five day course!

Okay, for all (three) of you who don't already know Linux, and who aren't interested in the "Novell" portions of this class, I'll be teaching GNU/Linux for the bargain price of (oh, it pains be to quote a figure so high) only $1,000 for a five day course!

Step right up!

If you're a bright class we might even get to advanced topics such as systems administration or software development with GCC and vi!

Re:Wow!

[iggymanz]

or for only $1250 you can sign up for *my* course where we even show you how to build your own software from source code with the magic of "configure, make, make install"

Re:Wow!

[bsharitt]

You had me until you said vi. Maybe I'll find someone who teaches Emacs.

Re:Wow!

[KilobyteKnight]

only $1,000 for a five day course!

I've got $0.79 and some pocket lint, will that do?

Re:Wow!

[Chicane-UK]

Hm.. well training IS expensive, but the point of paying for it from a well known company is just that. Its training by a major company.

No offence, but i've never heard of you - so why the hell would I want to go on your training?

"Ah I see Mr Jones - you are bziman accredited! Impressive! I guess you couldn't afford the Novell training though?" :)

Re:Wow!

[corbettw]

or for only $1250 you can sign up for *my* course where we even show you how to build your own software from source code with the magic of "configure, make, make install"

Egads, you've never worked in an environment with more than one server, have you? If I caught one of my guys doing that, I'd either fire him (if at my civilian job) or Article 15 him (if at my Reserve unit). Never, never, ever run "configure,make,make install", take a few extra steps and build an actual package, *then* install the software. This way you can:
* back out easily. 'rpm -e' or 'pkgrm' are easier than grepping through the Makefiles for all of the installed programs and piping that to 'find / -name $1 -exec rm' or whatever.
* copy the package to other servers and install quickly and easily. This allows you create once, install anywhere, and you can even script the installation process.
* avoid overwriting existing files. Any decent package manager will complain if the target file(s) already exists.

Re:Wow!

[iggymanz]

hahah, I certainly have worked in production data centers & mostly used packages for those reasons. HOWEVER, if a SAN vendor tells you that YOU MUST COMPILE YOUR HBA DRIVER USING THESE STEPS TO MAINTAIN WARRANTY/SUPPORT, then that is what you will do. You will not make an rpm, or I will fire you.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. iggmanz's Certification Course trains for your job, not you employee's.

Re:Wow!

[gl4ss]

2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something(with a certification that somebody might even respect). the difference with you and novel is that you don't have a reputation that anybody would trust(for all they know you could just sell nice 'certified by me' papers for 1000$ a piece, "get a cheap diploma!").

and usually there's some extra niceys thrown in of course and blabba blabba blaa, i don't know what extra niceys come in this though.

of course i wouldn't be able to afford it(2000$ would keep my rent paid and my mouth fed for few months), but it doesn't seem like an expensive deal all things considered. wouldn't seem that much difference from other training courses for other fields(medical/mechanic/whatever)...

Re:Wow!

[maximilln]

You're demonstrating the perfect qualities of a control freak and a class A knob. I bet you get off when fantasizing about exercising your power to fire or Article 15 an employee.

Back on topic...

Certifications have uses. I've always found the uses used against me therefore I think certifications suck. Give me 5 days on the job. Don't even pay me. I'll work for free just to show you that I can kick ass over any other candidate you might have on the job.

Re:Wow!

[drinkypoo]

There's room for both ways of life. Build things in /usr/local the old fashioned way; supersede them with packages installed to /usr/bin or perhaps an /opt depending on how you feel about it. Of course if you can get your packages submitted into the repository for your distribution, so much the better.

Re:Wow!

[jasonditz]

I'll do it for $950 and you can sleep on the sofabed in the back room.

Re:Wow!

[__past__]

I would, but it will cost you most-positive-fixnum dollars. But at least if you fail, you can still get a good job as a garbage collector.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

But, the RPM way is only part of the second course, for a mere 2500 $ extra!

Re:Wow!

[gr8fulnded]

After it's compiled, tar it up, put it where you want, untar it, and make install again. Is it really all that different then scp'ing a binary package someplace and installing it that way? Like you said, a good script can automate even that for you.

I tend to think 'make uninstall' is pretty easy to remove software.

Re:Wow!

[fishbonez]

2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something

Most of the 5-day training courses are priced for companies who want training for their employees. They are generally way too expensive for individuals to pay for out of pocket.

If you want to get a Linux certification and not spend a lot of money (and you basically already have Linux skills and can do some self study), then the Linux Professional Institute Certification is a better way to go. To reach Intermediate Level you have to take 4 tests, which cost $100 each for an affordable $400 total cost.

Re:Wow!

[iggymanz]

If you ever work with enterprise grade systems & data centers, you will find that packages are uaually REQUIRED. Required by contract, required by policy, required by QA...... If a million dollar database blows up, and there is any question that it *might* have been because you farqued up the configuration options being a "he-man" and compiling from source, guess what is going to happen to you & your company. Even if an rpm is corrupt, if you followed procedure & contract and can document that the rpm was at fault, that's a whole different ball game. Your point of view is fine for personal PC or small company running their own stuff, but wouldn't fly in an insurance company or bank or city datacenter.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me 5 days on the job. Pay me. We can negotiate the amount on the 5th day.

Re:Wow!

[jonadab]

> * back out easily. 'rpm -e' or 'pkgrm' are easier than grepping through
> the Makefiles for all of the installed programs and piping that to
> 'find / -name $1 -exec rm' or whatever.
> * copy the package to other servers and install quickly and easily. This
> allows you create once, install anywhere, and you can even script the
> installation process.

You should look into checkinstall, if you haven't already. Basically,
checkinstall replaces the make install portion of the above procedure
and builds a package (RPM being one of three package-type options).

> * avoid overwriting existing files. Any decent package manager will complain
> if the target file(s) already exists.

Except in /etc I've never found this to be a problem, unless you are trying
to have multiple versions of the same package installed, in which case you
really need to use the prefix option for the configure script anyway. As far
as /etc, you really should have it mirrored in another directory anyway.

(Actually, I like some things about the way Gentoo handles /etc, though it
could use some tweaking yet. e.g., for any given /etc/foo there ought to be /etc/foo.orig which you don't edit, so that your edits could be extracted as
a diff; in many cases the new version could be automatically patched with
your edits; you'd only have to merge them manually if you made changes in
some of the same places where the file changed from the old version to the
new one. The (unpatched) new version would then become the new foo.orig .)

Re:Wow!

[bziman]

Hm.. well training IS expensive, but the point of paying for it from a well known company is just that. Its training by a major company.

No offence, but i've never heard of you - so why the hell would I want to go on your training?

"Ah I see Mr Jones - you are bziman accredited! Impressive! I guess you couldn't afford the Novell training though?" :)

Actually, half my point was that no one who needed a Linux expert would take a Novell cert seriously, and that is why I think the price is kinda high. This cert is really only useful if you need someone who can deal with the custom Novell packages that neither I nor my employer (nor anyone else with a sane budget) would ever use. (Maybe not no one, but it's not as general purpose as the original post seems to imply...)

And anyway, I hope you don't apply for a job with me hoping to get it based soley on the well-known'd-ness of your certs... because when I see "Useless Novell Linux Certification" or "Probably Useless But Who Knows bziman Linux Certification", I'm going to grill you on Linux and find out whether you know the stuff or not.

You should be paying for quality, not just a name. The cert is for you to learn something, not to pad your resume. Unless you want to work for someone that will buy that.

--brian

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then do it the correct way, then lie about it.

LPI seems better to have

[invisik]

This cert from Novell has been on their site for a while now. But it seems that there's more substance to the LPI cert. But the industry has heard of Novell and not of LPI, so if you're into getting certs, both of them are probably appropriate.

What I think is better is the combination of the LPI and UL training for the SUSE certification. Seems as it's the meatiest path of them all....

-m

Good for them

[t0ny]

Im glad to see Novell adding further to their product line-up, and hope it goes well for them. Ive always liked Netware, ever since my first exposure to it at 4.1

BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.

But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially when they can fix things you cant; most *nix people just wave their hands and complain about Microsoft instead of actually *fixing* the Windows servers. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Re:Good for them

[muonman]

Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Its an even poorer craftsman who cant tell a good tool from a bad one.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Blah blah blah. MS is just as good, if not better, than any other NOS.

Its also quite easy for people to make fun of things they dont understand; I love how people always say MS stuff is simplistic, until they need to fix it. Then they just say its poorly designed. Maybe if they spent time trying to understand how the OS or application does things, instead of complaining about it, they could fix it.

Oh well. I guess nothing is going to snap people out of thier comfort zone. If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior.

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

So it's a safe bet you buy all your tools from the dollar store?

Seriously, there are orders of magnitude more paper based MCSE's than people who know what they are doing. Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system. You can't do much with them and therefore there is not much to figure out.

I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft. Some of the developers may know a bit more but they cheat.

And although I spend most of my day TRYING to fix windows, I assure you, there is no way to truely do so. There is a base level of brokeness you achieve when there are no nonOS memory leaks, all patches are applied, and none of the drivers have yellow flags and all diagnostics APPEAR to turn up reasonable results. But I assure you, even then, it's STILL broken.

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

I have provided proof equivelant to that provided by the parent. If he wishes to respond I will debate him. I will not however debate an AC.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

OOhhh! I call banination on you! You didn't bash MCSE's! Apostate! Heretic!

Re:Good for them

[brsmith4]

I think most *nix people, like myself, are turned off to MS not simply because their servers are less stable or more bug prone, god knows that *nix admins have to run patches a lot too. I think my biggest gripe has to be the cumbersome nature of admining a box with a UI that was really designed for a user-friendly home machine. Compared to linux or solaris, where I can admin a hundred boxes by typing in one command (of course, after I set everything up to do that), its a bitch to admin multiple windows machines. On linux desktops, if i want to set up printers, i simply copy over the cups config files to the new machine. 1 second, done. Windows, you must go through a myriad of printer configuration screens, esp. if your printer is on an lpd server. I could ghost a windows image and burn it in to each machine, preserving settings, but that is as well, time consuming. I could copy out the registry settings and reimport them at install, but its still easier to scp/rcp files and be done with it. Now a good MCSE is a master at his/her craft and I admire his/her patience (hehe) and his/her ability to navigate and troubleshoot a poorly documented and closed source system. However, I do agree with the parent/parent/parent/.. that the MCSE test is quite lacking. Real-world scenarios in a lab and not on a A-B-C-D answer sheet would make the MCSE test more worthy of the money that you put into it.

Re:Good for them

[tzanger]

Its also quite easy for people to make fun of things they dont understand; I love how people always say MS stuff is simplistic, until they need to fix it. Then they just say its poorly designed. Maybe if they spent time trying to understand how the OS or application does things, instead of complaining about it, they could fix it.

Actually that's not my problem with Windows. My problem is that it's too complex, too convoluted, and simply lacks the tools to properly diagnose and repair. Sure you can buy third party tools to make up for some of these deficiencies but I'd rather use Linux. The configuration for pretty much everything is plain text and documented freely instead of hidden behind a single-point-of-failure binary registry and anonymous GID identifiers. The system internals are all public and I can access any part of it I need without gagging NDAs and/or paying for the privilege and finally -- I am not tied to one megacorp with a penchant for monopolistic practises and stifling innovation. I have enough problems with running a business that I don't need to compound the issue by welcoming the vampire into my house.

Basically my beef with Windows and my desire to use Linux stems from the simple fact that when something does go wrong, I can fix it far easier and without paying for the privilege. And in those cases when Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to fix something, I can always hire a programmer to fix it for me.

Re:Good for them

[_Sprocket_]

BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.

You're right - a good MCSE is an asset to a company running Windows. Heck - a good admin familiar with his employer's arhictecture is an asset to any company. But I disagree with your dismisal of paper MCSE's.

Maybe its the difference between your working environment and mine. A real possibility since I've worked both within outstanding resource-rich environments and with organizations who, to be polite, are simply cheap. In any case, I have seen a real market for the stereotypical paper MCSE. They exist. And they keep their jobs.

Don't get me wrong - not all MCSEs are of that sort. I've met some very technical Windows types that had a rather in-depth knowledge of the platform. Which has lead to some really great technical discussions (and some very handy exchanges of expertise from time to time). But I've found them to rare.

But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially when they can fix things you cant; most *nix people just wave their hands and complain about Microsoft instead of actually *fixing* the Windows servers. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

This is kind of an odd thing to say. After all, when do we throw a Windows admin at a Solaris system?

Its interesting that the tool anology comes up. The whole reason techies get impassioned about verious systems and whatnot has a lot to do with craftsmen and tools. After all, sysadmins tend to be craftsmen. And while an expert craftsman might be able to make a chair using nothing but a hammer and screwdriver, they're definately going to feel contrained. They won't be able to produce the level of work they know they could with the right tools (or at least tools they are comfortable with).

My work desktop environment right now is Win2K due to various contraints (office automation apps, a few Windows machines I have to keep an eye on, etc). Yet I go to quite a bit of trouble to make that environment as Unix-like as I can. I really prefer that environment. And I've been able to pull off a few things recently that have had my coworkers wowed (thanks to Cygwin).

One last point - I've experienced both sides. I started as a rather oblivious Windows admin. Then I had to pick up some Unix machines and found an environment that I preferred. I will only grudgingly admin a Windows machine from this point on (and I ocassionally still do). I can certainly understand why people do not want to work with Windows systems. But then - I suppose I can sypmathize with anybody who doesn't want to touch *nix (even if I don't agree with them).

Someone claiming that a *nix admin should just learn to fix Windows instead of complaining about it sounds more like ignorance to me than insight.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

So it's a safe bet you buy all your tools from the dollar store?

Whats wrong with tools from the dollar store? I have a really nice mini-screwdriver set from there, some decent wire cutters, and a few other things. Like most people who try and live by witty comments like that, you are making a comment based largely on your own ignorance, and mask that ignorance with ridicule. BTW, avoid dollar store flashlights, and just stick with Maglite. Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system

Pretty much any idiot can work on any system. I know very big morons who 'work' on AS400s, Netware servers, Sun Unix servers, etc; idiots are truly OS independent. All you do is bolster the belief that anyone can work on Windows because it has a GUI, which isnt true, and is really a diservice to the people who understand the Windows architecture and therefore are able to build very stable servers. It has rules, best practices, and limitations just like *everything* else.

I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.

I think its safe to say you dont know any tech related employees at Microsoft.

I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.

Thats pretty strange, because the servers *I* build have 99.999% uptime. You must be doing something wrong, and I think that pretty much negates your previous claim to knowledge.

There is a base level of brokeness you achieve when there are no nonOS memory leaks, all patches are applied, and none of the drivers have yellow flags and all diagnostics APPEAR to turn up reasonable results. But I assure you, even then, it's STILL broken.

Then it could be a hardware issue. Bad memory is often the culprit; I once had a goofy time with one server which never worked right; we eventaully contacted the vendor, and there were some problems with the motherboard. Another time a wire was obstructing one of the processor fans. A good rule of thumb is to not blame the OS; there honestly ARE servers out there which work properly, so there has to be some other cause at work. You can follow the OSI model, start at the bottom, and work your way up.

As I said, people like to just throw up their hands and blame Microsoft; actual troubleshooting, research, etc, is too tedious. Its not MS's fault companies put out faulty equipment, bad drivers, etc.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

This is kind of an odd thing to say. After all, when do we throw a Windows admin at a Solaris system?

As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it. So they try, and fail; for the most part, its hard NOT to work in IT and have no exposure to Windows, but they think being an expert on one platform somehow makes them an expert on another, and so to mask their lack of knowledge, they just say Windows is stupid and not made 'correctly'. Never mind the fact that they dont really understand that most things access the registry in some way, or how to deal with the APIs, proper Windows troubleshooting, etc.

I dont pretend to be an expert on anything but Windows: it would be nice to get the same consideration from system engineers dealing with other platforms.

My work desktop environment right now is Win2K due to various contraints (office automation apps, a few Windows machines I have to keep an eye on, etc). Yet I go to quite a bit of trouble to make that environment as Unix-like as I can. I really prefer that environment. And I've been able to pull off a few things recently that have had my coworkers wowed (thanks to Cygwin).

Thats funny, I tend to try and make my Windows networks more Netware-like. Im not really an expert on Netware, but when I was learning networking I worked in a place with a really good implimentation of Netware as the NOS (and Ive seen really bad implimentations, too, so just having it isnt a meter of quality [like everything else]). Apparently, lots of other people are this way as well, because there are lots of tools to add things like 'real' logon scripting (KiXtart, ScriptLogic) and other network admin stuff.

Someone claiming that a *nix admin should just learn to fix Windows instead of complaining about it sounds more like ignorance to me than insight.

Im saying if you have to do something, do it right. Complaining doesnt fix problems, nor does sticking your head in the sand and acting like something is 'wrong' just because they dont want to understand it. As I said, theres nothing wrong with not wanting to learn it, but acting like it's worthless knowledge is insulting to those who actually know what they are doing.

Re:Good for them

[Avihson]

That sounds like a good MCSE Motto:
"If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior."

We understand how an OS and applications do things, that is why we prefer Linux. I do not need an abstraction layer protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface. I do not need a monopoly telling me what I can and can't do with the hardware I bought. I do not need forced upgrades, poor security, bloated code, and a GHz or better procesor to type a letter or browse the internet.

Most of all, I don't need Clippy to help me do my work!

Linus, Raymond, RMS, Cox and crew do not care if I upgrade my motherboard or get a new hard drive, so why do I have to get permission from Microsoft when I try it with XP?

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

1. you can set printers using Active Directory 'policies', which will replicate to all the machines you specify in that domain. BTW, there is a lot of new functionality with AD; Im not quite an expert on it yet, because Im still stuck supporting a lot of NT4 machines, and regular Domains; people are scare to migrate to AD for some bizarre reason (IMO too many consultants are just fool companies into thinking it's a big expensive undertaking).

2. Windows is extremely well documented; I never lack for reference material, and TechNet is often the first and last place I need to look up a problem (but their seach feature could be more robust, to put it politely).

3. The Windows 2000/XP/2003 tests use more scenario questions. Its not a written test, but since A-B-C-D only gives you a 25% chance of being right, its hard to get an 80% by random chance or 'learning' the questions; many testing sites also use adaptive tests, which get progressively harder as you answer correct questions, but higher scores can only be achieved this way; also, missing softball questions will easily fail you on an adaptive test.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

The configuration for pretty much everything is plain text and documented freely instead of hidden behind a single-point-of-failure binary registry and anonymous GID identifiers

This has never been an issue for me, since TechNet documents just about anything you need to know. Understanding how the registry works helps a lot, too, and Ive never found the registry to be a single point of failure (well, misconfiguration can be that on any platform).

The system internals are all public and I can access any part of it I need without gagging NDAs and/or paying for the privilege

Ive been working on Windows servers for almost ten years, and I have yet to even see an NDA.

I am not tied to one megacorp with a penchant for monopolistic practises and stifling innovation

Ah, the typical Slashdot line makes its appearence. This is like when a Republican cant think of anything to say, so they just shout "Well, Clinton got a blow-job!"

IMO, Microsoft has done more for innovation in the last ten years than any other company. Before Win95 everybody was content to have their own little sand castle, and to hell with anybody trying to make a complete system. One company did Terminal Emulation, one did virtual memory, one did Winsocks, you had to buy protocols, you had to buy browsers, etc. By the time you got done putting together a system which would do what you wanted, your costs were well over $2000. I say thank goodness for MS flipping everyone the bird and including components into the OS, so you could just buy the OS and have a network client, or a computer which can access the internet, all without having to purchase and install three seperate pieces of software.

Look up the computer history; MS became dominant on the desktop because everyone else didnt care about the desktop, and were trying to make mega cash on servers/networking.

Basically my beef with Windows and my desire to use Linux stems from the simple fact that when something does go wrong, I can fix it far easier and without paying for the privilege.

If most companies had Linux systems, they would need to pay for the privilege of getting it fixed; more people know how to support MS than Linux, and they are most likely already employees.

And in those cases when Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to fix something, I can always hire a programmer to fix it for me.

I cant for the life of me figure out how this would apply to any real-world scenarios... Its basically like me saying its Ford's fault that my fan belt broke, and they should be responsible for fixing it. Heaven forbid you bring the car in to a mechanic...

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

"Whats wrong with tools from the dollar store? I have a really nice mini-screwdriver set from there, some decent wire cutters, and a few other things. Like most people who try and live by witty comments like that, you are making a comment based largely on your own ignorance, and mask that ignorance with ridicule. BTW, avoid dollar store flashlights, and just stick with Maglite."

Yes you can get tools there that will get the job done. A phillips screwdriver is a phillips screwdriver wherever you get it from. But I've yet to pay $30 for a tool somewhere else that wasn't superior in some fashion to the $3 equivelent in the dollar store. If you saw a more complex tool, even say, an rj45 crimper in the dollar store for $5 would you buy it and use it to crimp the ends being plugged into even a 16port switch? I should hope not.

"Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system."

You have a point, idiots are OS independant, it could be argued that there are more people working on windows in general and that is why you see more idiots. I won't debate that, but pretty much anyone who can configure a mail client has enough knowledge to walk up and configure an exchange server (definately note I'm not saying PROPERLY configure) and get it running. The boss doesn't know if it's configured properly or not, that's just one more MCSE that slips through the cracks.

My argument isn't neccesarily even that windows sucks. It's that it's EXTREMELY easy to become an MCSE, and on windows they use these things called wizards that eliminate the requirement to actually know how a service operates beneath the surface. As a result someone who is not qualified can get the certification and limp along. They may not entirely fool their co-workers, but they'll fool the boss and that's all that counts. After 5yrs of this they will have learned enough to be as qualified as they should have been before getting the job to begin with. I've worked with these people, I know.

"I think its safe to say you dont know any tech related employees at Microsoft."

Actually I have family who are tech related employee's at Microsoft. On the basis I know them and many of their tech workers I'd like to amend and extend this. 90% of course is a number pulled out of my arse. However based on the few dozen tech related employee's I DO know and the experiences I've had with Microsoft technical support, I'd like to extend my statement to yourself and the majority of slashdot. I think it's a fair bet that you and most of slashdot know more about the windows operating system than most individual microsoft employees do.

For instance, my support has never been compared with the psychic friend's network, and barely broke even. In my experience most people call the vendor when they have problems they can't resolve on their own with a product. When it's a microsoft product however, in my experience people are more likely to call a tech shop than microsoft and more likely to get it fixed by calling any random tech shop.

"Thats pretty strange, because the servers *I* build have 99.999% uptime. You must be doing something wrong, and I think that pretty much negates your previous claim to knowledge."

First, doing something wrong negates no claims of knowledge. Second, as I've already said, the claims I made aren't really claiming much. Last, let me guess, you are building servers that perform a fixed function, all the time, you have less than 10 genuinely unique setups which you build. You claim 99.999% uptime, are you sure that's the server or the service? If you have a backup server that even comes into play to keep that uptime going then your server does NOT have 99.999% uptime.

Then it could be a hardware issue. Bad memory is often the culprit; I once had a goofy time with one server which never worked right; we eventaully contacted the vendor, and there were some problems with the motherboard. Another time a wire was obstructing one of the proc

Re:Good for them

[brsmith4]

1. Well, I figured A.D. had that capability but you are stuck with what I said if those machines are independent of a domain.

2. You MS guys have more experience looking for answers to your questions. When I run into a MS problem, I search TechNet and various sources only to find the question that I am looking for but not a good answer. With linux, if I run the search on google, chances are, the answer is in the search string for each matching item.

3. As for the test thing, well, thats up for debate. Im of the school that real world scenarios, that are actually played out as a test, are more comprehensive and demonstrate a better understanding of the material than a bubble sheet.

Really though, I am a *nix admin. I am not suited for nor am I comfortable with admining NT/2k/XP/2k3 servers/clients/etc. I do notice one thing: There is more easily available info for those starting to admin on *nix than there is for windows boxes. I have found that systems admin for Windows has a more steep learning curve than any *nix platform. Mind you, this is my opinion.

Re:Good for them

[tzanger]

This [windows system configuration] has never been an issue for me, since TechNet documents just about anything you need to know. Understanding how the registry works helps a lot, too, and Ive never found the registry to be a single point of failure (well, misconfiguration can be that on any platform).

Any time I've tried to find out anything nontrivial on TechNet I've come up empty. A recent example was optimizing SMB to tell it that it was perfectly fine to fragment packets so that I could get better TCP/IP SMB throughput.

Ive been working on Windows servers for almost ten years, and I have yet to even see an NDA.

Good for you. Now try doing anything that has you digging around in kernelspace. Oh, or how about working with SMB? That's under NDA these days.

Ah, the typical Slashdot line makes its appearence. This is like when a Republican cant think of anything to say, so they just shout "Well, Clinton got a blow-job!"

I could care less about the typical slashdot line. Microsoft's been proven time and time again that they're using their monopoly to stifle competition (and innovation, by extension) -- I've got plenty of meat to my original post, this was just another datapoint. Clinton's blowjob doesn't have anything to do with his ability to lead a nation. His lying about it was the problem. Same thing with MS. Being the 800-lb gorilla isn't inherently bad. It's when you use your position to beat down competition that it becomes a problem.

I say thank goodness for MS flipping everyone the bird and including components into the OS, so you could just buy the OS and have a network client, or a computer which can access the internet, all without having to purchase and install three seperate pieces of software.

Oh yeah, thank you MS for embracing and extending so many technologies and locking everyone in to the MS way of doing things. That's made life so much better...

You're absolutely right about creating a common platform but interop is also very important... and to get interop you need open protocols and UNEXTENDED protocols. MS is not keen on either. And now enter DRM and DMCA and you've got MS' wet dream: total vendor lock-in.

If most companies had Linux systems, they would need to pay for the privilege of getting it fixed; more people know how to support MS than Linux, and they are most likely already employees.

It all comes back to my orignal post -- oftentimes the only fucking way to solve a nontrivial problem with MS is to format, reinstall and restore from backup. Even if you can get the system back online, it's unstable because something is wonky and you just can't get to what... Or, if you've cast the right incantations and sacrificed to the right board members, you know exactly where the problem is but can't replace just that one subsystem. On Linux I have never ever had to do fix a software problem by restoring from backup, and oftentimes correcting the problem was far faster than a total reinstall. Any monkey can say they support Windows and their typical response is "reboot, hmm ok, reinstall" -- I don't know of any other operating system where that is SOP and acceptable. You can have tons of "windows support" if that's their response.

I cant for the life of me figure out how this would apply to any real-world scenarios... Its basically like me saying its Ford's fault that my fan belt broke, and they should be responsible for fixing it. Heaven forbid you bring the car in to a mechanic...

Win95 support has been terminated. You can't upgrade your Win95 system for whatever reason. You're fucked. If you have a RedHat 5 system you can still solve the problem and continue on. There's no forced-upgrade cycle. Of course you pay for the privilege, but you can still get done what you need. It's just like drive recovery... You were stupid/unlucky enough to not have a backup, you're gonna pay to get your data back. But you can still (wi

Re:Good for them

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Actually, it's a poor craftsman who chooses poor tools.

The skilled craftsman knows a good tool (Unix, Linux, Netware) when he sees it. It might be a little dirty, but that's from lots of use. It's well worn in. It's built to exacting specifications and it gets the job done, every time.

The naive craftsman will simply reach for the shiniest tool in the toolbox (Windows) and learn the hard way that he's chosen a tool that, although pretty, is poorly designed and built, and he's going to end up taking twice as long to get the job done, and he still won't be as happy with his finished work later.

If you're going to do an analogy, do it right.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Yes you can get tools there that will get the job done. A phillips screwdriver is a phillips screwdriver wherever you get it from. But I've yet to pay $30 for a tool somewhere else that wasn't superior in some fashion to the $3 equivelent in the dollar store. If you saw a more complex tool, even say, an rj45 crimper in the dollar store for $5 would you buy it and use it to crimp the ends being plugged into even a 16port switch? I should hope not.

Nothing spends easier than other peoples money, thats for sure. That mentality is what makes people pay $700 for a toilet seat. BTW, I have a crimper that costs $7.50, and it works just as well as any other Ive ever used. Ive never found crimp tools to be the essence of hi-tech that other have, I suppose.

It's that it's EXTREMELY easy to become an MCSE, and on windows they use these things called wizards that eliminate the requirement to actually know how a service operates beneath the surface

And of course, you speak authoritatively on this because you've taken all the MCSE tests, and you have used those wizards, right? Of course not, you just go by what others on Slashdot say.

I found the MSCE tests to be easy, but if I wouldnt have had about five years of Windows experience prior to that, Im not so sure I would have. Also, the only thing the wizards "do" for you is remove some of the headaches of needing to manually enter certain things. For example, setting up the DNS service on Win2k no longer requires you to manually insert each domain, subnet, the reverse lookup addresses, etc. But you still have to know what you are doing, or it will turn out misconfigured. Its a convience, not a substitute for knowledge, so please dont try and tell me how great the wizards are.

They may not entirely fool their co-workers, but they'll fool the boss and that's all that counts. After 5yrs of this they will have learned enough to be as qualified as they should have been before getting the job to begin with. I've worked with these people, I know.

And can use the same description for a guy who was a Unix and Checkpoint Firewall admin. Coaching to pass HR and interviews is nothing new, and it certainly isnt only MS (or even IT) related. Opinion via anecdote is generally a very poor substitute for fact.

However based on the few dozen tech related employee's I DO know and the experiences I've had with Microsoft technical support, I'd like to extend my statement ...

Im sorry, but anybody who bases a company's knowledge on office workers and phone support people really cant be trusted to give an unbiased account of that company's technical competance. If a person were so good, they wouldnt be jockeying the phone support- I thought we all understood that.

When it's a microsoft product however, in my experience people are more likely to call a tech shop than microsoft and more likely to get it fixed by calling any random tech shop.

Thats because they contact people with real world experience, rather than a minimum wage pseudo-technical phone support person who is only going to search TechNet (something which you *should* have done before calling them...). Ive only called MS twice, and both times it was after exhausting all other avenues. Both times it also needed to be escelated beyond the support desk, and I was contacted regarding issues which were in beta stage of being added into technet; my call just got me a Hotfix somewhat earlier.

Last, let me guess, you are building servers that perform a fixed function, all the time, you have less than 10 genuinely unique setups which you build

I have built so many servers I cant even name a number. To ballpark I would say around 100, a mix of NT4 and Win2k (maybe 60-70 NT4, i guess... Its old hat, so I dont keep count). Ive done tons of migrations of old servers to new, about 10-20 were exchange servers, Ive seperated functions on machines which had

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

1. well, thats why people use domains, silly ;P

2. I sometimes use google. It actually links back to a lot of technet articles. As I said, MS really needs to work on their technet search engine.

I think the issue is just experience. When something breaks, I can think for a minute on what process the issue is supposed to go thru, and see where in that process the error is occuring. From that, I will know approximately what is going wrong. Im guessing any other OS would troubleshoot the same way, its just that (as I mentioned), a lot of other people dont put the time into learning the steps that Windows, Exchange, etc, go thru; nor should they if they arent Windows experts. But its just like everything- some people are experts, some people arent.

3. The only testing Ive heard of with that would be the CCIE tests, where they throw you in a room with a broken network and tell you to fix it. You may want to look into examples of how MS does their test questions now, its pretty different than standard multiple guess questions from the past.

Hmm, Ive never found there to be a lack of information on administrating windows; a quick search of Amazon.com should turn up literally hundreds, along with (as my favorite feature) user reviews and critiques on which books are good, which arent.

Re:Good for them

[FyRE666]

Look up the computer history; MS became dominant on the desktop because everyone else didnt care about the desktop, and were trying to make mega cash on servers/networking.

And here I always thought they did it by reverse-engineering Apple's Macintosh OS, selling the (incredibly buggy) results as pre-installed software on cheap Asian-sourced hardware, and undercutting everyone else just enough that people would buy it. A couple of decades of arm-twisting and other illegal practices later, and we have the current MS...

And in those cases when Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to fix something, I can always hire a programmer to fix it for me.

I cant for the life of me figure out how this would apply to any real-world scenarios... Its basically like me saying its Ford's fault that my fan belt broke, and they should be responsible for fixing it. Heaven forbid you bring the car in to a mechanic...

I think the analogy would be close to your car stalling in the middle of a highway, all the warning lights frozen on and the ignition key jammed solid.

In any event, have YOU ever taken a car into a mechanic that has its bonnet welded shut, and legal threats plastered all over it warning the garage about the consequences if they have the temerity to take a look at how it works, and what the problem is?

Re:Good for them

[3Suns]

there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed

So can I... just hit enter a bunch of times in the Debian installer. (sorry, too easy)

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Any time I've tried to find out anything nontrivial on TechNet I've come up empty. A recent example was optimizing SMB to tell it that it was perfectly fine to fragment packets so that I could get better TCP/IP SMB throughput.

there is a book which I think its called "Windows NT Plumbing". My copy is at the office, but its most likely in there.

Any monkey can say they support Windows and their typical response is "reboot, hmm ok, reinstall" -- I don't know of any other operating system where that is SOP and acceptable. You can have tons of "windows support" if that's their response.

The only place Ive seen that kind of support is at Best Buy. You arent having them support your servers, are you? ;)

I agree, reinstalling the OS isnt a way to fix the problem. I only do that on servers which I havent built, and if they act flakey. I need to be able to trust my hardware, but that only happens if I trust the person who built the server (which is a real short list).

Oh yeah, thank you MS for embracing and extending so many technologies and locking everyone in to the MS way of doing things. That's made life so much better...

Seems to me that linux and mac are still doing things their ways... there are lots of other people making non-MS software, last I checked. Dont know what more can be said.

Win95 support has been terminated. You can't upgrade your Win95 system for whatever reason

More specifically, they dont recommend upgrading any Win9x/ME system to 2000/XP- the registries are completely different, and it will break whatever applications you are using on that system. Plus, Win95 is pretty old, isnt it? Anyway, my last job had lots of Win9x clients. They paid lots of people to fix Win9x clients, and I know several stores which still do so.?

My hard drive failed. That's not Maxtor's fault

If its a Maxtor drive, it is. I dont see how you can MS for a hardware failure.

Re:Good for them

[TheCabal]

MS has been using simulator questions since the IIS 4.0 exam. The Win2k3/XP exams have even more simulator type questions. Even with an A-B-C-D type "multiple guess" exam, unless you know something about something, you stand to only get 25% correct, which is far less than the 70-80% needed to actually pass. The paper MCSEs get weeded out pretty quickly, at least in my area, and we usually hear about the bad ones when they come knocking.

Want to install printers to all your desktops? Use AD Group Policy. That's why it's there. Makes it extraordinarily easy to keep your enterprise standardized. Install a SUS server, and now patching is a breeze also.

Got technical problems? I haven't seen a problem yet that hasn't been addresses at MS' TechNet. On those very rare occasions that i've had to call Tech Support, I've always gotten the problem fixes, and on all but one occasion, had my money refunded for the call.

It's easy to argue how much something sucks from a position of ignorance. Try asking a question and learning instead of perpetuating the FUD that is the stock in trade at this place.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is just as good, if not better, than any other NOS.

This is just wrong on so many levels. I can administer both Windows and Linux servers. I have also dabbled with Novell servers (long ago when Novell was king but I recently fixed a troublesome problem with a customer's Novell system so the knowledge isn't all gone).

The thing that has always bothered me about Windows servers (and Window in general) is not that Windows is simplistic, but that it is just soooo damned complicated. There have been many, many times that I have fought a problem, trying all the logical things with no effect, and then finding that the solution is associated with something totally unrelated to the problem that I was fighting.

Maybe if they spent time trying to understand how the OS or application does things, instead of complaining about it, they could fix it.

Windows is just so poorly written, with interdepencies between so many things that logically should not be connected, that maintaining any Windows system is more akin to magic than any logical thinking. There are just too damned many things in Windows that are "I don't know why, just do it because that's what makes it work!" You can't understand how the OS does things because any rules that exist are routinely broken; not only by third-party application developers but by Microsoft themselves!

Linux and Novell both are much easier to maintain from my perspective.

Re:Good for them

[PimpBot]

t0ny, I just want to know, I hear you.

There's a belief out there that Unix (and its variants) is the end-all-be-all of Operating Systems - to understand Unix is to understand everything.* Well, its not.

Windows NT systems, Unix systems, QNX, etc. all have their good sides and their bad sides. They are all equally complex, but each in their own unique way.

Some people will scoff at my comment, but trust me - I've developed and help maintain Windows Servers, Solaris Servers, Linux Servers, AIX Servers, MacOS X setups (no MacOS X Servers yet :-( ), HP-UX Servers, FreeBSD Servers, NetBSD servers, and IBM Mainframes running z/OS. I have rants and raves about each of them - but none of them is any better or worse than the others.

Why? Because they're all tools used in getting a job done.

Console-based development is a dream on Unix-variants, but I would never depend upon them for any - the graphical environments are just too fragmented. I would probably go with Windows or MacOS X for that (most likely Windows due to higher use in the market).

Right tool for the job, people. Just because you've never used (or don't like a certain tool) doesn't mean its the wrong solution to a particular problem.

P.S. - The one thing I will give Unix is that its simple design helps facilitate understanding it. You can learn a lot from reading the source and working with the OS - its very much tied to its hardware.

Re:Good for them

[CAIMLAS]

That reminds me of a saying my grandfather has.

Only a craftsman can properly use a dull knife, but he won't.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a big expensive undetaking if you want to take advantage of all AD perks you need to upgrade all your desktops to 2000 or xp.

Re:Good for them

[CAIMLAS]

Good god, you're not terribly aware of the other side of the fence, are you?

The problem with fixing (and knowing) a Windows system is many times more complex than fixing a *nix system. It's not because the system itself is inherrently more complex, it's because it's more heavily obscured and much less documented.

But that's besides the point. A windows system -is- more complex, and needlessly so. The people that designed the Windows registry don't even understand it completely, how are windows admins or anyone else?

The problem *nix admins have with windows is because it's -not- as good as a *nix variant in terms of administration. Admin tasks take many, many times longer on a windows system than a *nix system because the fundamental tools and framework for providing those functions isn't there. Simply put, Windows wasn't designed for ease of administration in a professional environment, it wasn't designed for ease of access to system functions, and it wasn't designed to do anything but increase the coffers in Redmond.

And don't think you can refute this saying something like, "But longhorn will..." - it's too little, 10 years too late (and it's still only rumored, at that).

Re:Good for them

[ssstraub]

1. you can set printers using Active Directory 'policies', which will replicate to all the machines you specify in that domain.

But then the problem has now become dependant on the AD backend, the user's machine being part of that domain, the machine name itself, (often) the user's account, etc...
Where as with cups config, all you'd have to do is copy and paste some text...which seems much easier.

In my experience on our AD domain, printers aren't fun. I would love being able to copy & paste configs.

Re:Good for them

[brsmith4]

I'm not perpetuating any FUD. I never even said anything sucked. Please don't be so defensive. I gave honest admiration and respect to those that admin on the windows platform. Their job is different from mine and I expect that they have the experience that I don't. I thought I made this clear.

I have had to admin windows boxes before. I have found that setup for a win2k domain is rather convoluted and more iffy than what I find acceptable. I have a much easier time finding solutions to problems on *nix platforms than on windows platforms.

A good example is a recent problem I ran into. I had set up 12 completely identical machines with win2k pro to run in a multi-platform compute farm. I ran the usual set of patches and updates, installed Service Pack 3, etc etc etc. When I booted the machines, all of the machines but one performed as it should. The lone runt had a strange bug where the Control Panel was divided into two panes, one with the icons and one pane without anything. This was a minor issue that I chose to ignore, thinking it was just a random mistake in some registry setting. Well, if that wasn't odd enough, the Add/Remove Programs utility was completely corrupted. Therefore, I could not remove, through the utility, an old version of matlab that I had installed. I searched goolge, I searched the MS knowledge base, I asked talented windows admins with whom I worked, I searched technet for posts that talked about this problem. I found the question, but the solutions did not work. I fought with it and fought with it, removing SP3 and installing SP2, removing patches, updates, reinstalling them. Nothing. It was not until service pack 4 came out a month later, that the problem dissapeared. I have NEVER had this problem on a *nix platform before. Problems like this simply do not happen. There is not a question that someone, somewhere cannot answer. I can look up source code, I can talk to developers of that particular software. With MS, if I want to talk to something even close to a developer, it costs quite a bit of $$$.

I am not bashing MS nor am I making an attempt to purpetuate FUD. This has been my experience. Maybe I handled it incorrectly, but I did the best I could. I asked questions, I tried to learn the tricks of the trade. In the end, I got what I wanted, but it was at a higher cost of time and effort that what it would have been on a *nix platform.

Re:Good for them

[_Sprocket_]

As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it.

But as you point this out, you have to keep in mind just who is fostering this perception.

First, it comes squarely from Microsoft. Windows has always been marketed as the easy solution. Even on the server. Heck - Microsoft even claims that Windows admins cost less. The implication here is that your admin doesn't have to be as experienced or skilled.

Secondly, Windows proponents will often push "ease of use". Whenever the *nix vs. Windows jihad starts up in some conversation in these parts, there is always the Windows proponent talking about how much easier it is to set something up in Windows. Or they talk about the ease of a GUI configuration (what's amusing is seeing one talk about how advanced the Windows GUI config utilities are while another says that critics just don't understand the depth of Windows since all they know about is the GUI). I don't bring this up to summon the jihad or get in to a debate about configuration options. The point is that "ease of use" becomes the first and foremost point in a lot of these conversations.

I agree that Windows is much more complex than many seem to believe. But this perception has nothing to do with the *nix camp.

So they try, and fail; for the most part, its hard NOT to work in IT and have no exposure to Windows, but they think being an expert on one platform somehow makes them an expert on another, and so to mask their lack of knowledge, they just say Windows is stupid and not made 'correctly'. Never mind the fact that they dont really understand that most things access the registry in some way, or how to deal with the APIs, proper Windows troubleshooting, etc.

When I was saddled with a Windows server again, I was finding myself asking my Windows friends lots of stupid questions. I had forgotten a LOT over the last few years. But even as I remembered, re-learned, and outright discovered new things about Windows... I still find myself despising the platform. I admit my bias. But that bias comes a dislike for the Microsoft / Windows way of doing things (or more accurately, an appreciation for the *nix way).

Sure. Some Windows critics could probably learn from some time in front of a Windows server. But you're too quick to dismiss all this expressed dislike for Windows as ignorance of the platform.

Im saying if you have to do something, do it right. Complaining doesnt fix problems, nor does sticking your head in the sand and acting like something is 'wrong' just because they dont want to understand it. As I said, theres nothing wrong with not wanting to learn it, but acting like it's worthless knowledge is insulting to those who actually know what they are doing.

I guess I have to agree here. When my new job had me facing a rather horrid Windows system, I buckled down and did what I had to do to administer it. That's involved a lot more Windows knowledge than I've had interest in. And I definitely value the advice from my Windows-knowledgeable friends in dealing with this albatross.

But I still think the Windows way is "wrong". And not from a lack of working with it.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, this goes from +5 interesting all the way to -1 flamebait.

Its nice to see Slashdot still pushing its "we only want to hear repeats of what all the other zealots are saying, truth be damned" adgenda.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

But then the problem has now become dependant on the AD backend, the user's machine being part of that domain, the machine name itself, (often) the user's account, etc...

Well, its a shame you find the whole model of security on AD annoying, but thats what it is. If you dont like it, dont use it; Im not complaining that my screwdriver makes a bad hammer.

Windows security is based on trust relationships between the computer and the domain (or, by extension, the active directory). Meaning you cant just plug a strange computer to the network and expect it to be able to use network resources. There are ways to circumvent this requirement, but it isnt all that easy and still requires an account and password.

The fact of the matter is that this is the Windows security model, and people dont try to learn it; they just complain about it. Oh well, the info is out there, and its not MS's fault people choose not to educate themselves.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

And here I always thought they did it by reverse-engineering Apple's Macintosh OS, selling the (incredibly buggy) results as pre-installed software on cheap Asian-sourced hardware, and undercutting everyone else just enough that people would buy it. A couple of decades of arm-twisting and other illegal practices later, and we have the current MS...

Well, you would be mistaken. Win32 architecture bears no resemblence to Apple's OS, but you would actually have to understand how they work to know that. Most people, like yourself, thing "Hmm, one has a GUI, and so does the other... they much be the same!" You are essentially saying that Ferrari ripped off Ford because they both have red cars with four tires and a steering wheel.

I think the analogy would be close to your car stalling in the middle of a highway, all the warning lights frozen on and the ignition key jammed solid.

As I keep saying, if somebody who knows what they are doing can get it to work, and you cant, where does the problem lie? Hmmm... couldnt be you, could it?

In any event, have YOU ever taken a car into a mechanic that has its bonnet welded shut, and legal threats plastered all over it warning the garage about the consequences if they have the temerity to take a look at how it works, and what the problem is?

That analogy is equal parts stupid, paranoid, and incorrect. But, since you obviously dont really know Windows, I dont see why anybody should be expected to take your 'expert' opinion on the matter.

I like to get my expert opinions from actual experts, thank you.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen the questions myself, but people here at work are taking the Microsoft Certified .NET something tests without learning anything.

We are still looking to hire someone who knows something about MS SQL-server, although half the programmers took the SQL certification.

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

"And of course, you speak authoritatively on this because you've taken all the MCSE tests, and you have used those wizards, right? Of course not, you just go by what others on Slashdot say."

As a matter of fact I AM an MCSE. Your assumptions are certainly not sound. You assume my dislike of windows and belief in it's instability are based on ignorance. You are wrong, they are based on experience and extensive knowledge.

"Nothing spends easier than other peoples money, thats for sure. That mentality is what makes people pay $700 for a toilet seat. BTW, I have a crimper that costs $7.50, and it works just as well as any other Ive ever used. Ive never found crimp tools to be the essence of hi-tech that other have, I suppose."

A toilet seat fall under the phillips category. A crimper on the other hand is used by REAL network technicians to secure literally hundreds of connections every day. Even 1 weak crimp could destroy your 99.999% uptime in an office. I'd argue it's one of the single most likely points of failure in the network.

"For example, setting up the DNS service on Win2k no longer requires you to manually insert each domain, subnet, the reverse lookup addresses, etc. But you still have to know what you are doing, or it will turn out misconfigured. Its a convience, not a substitute for knowledge, so please dont try and tell me how great the wizards are."

Really? I'll give this a test tommorow, I'll pull out a couple of our windows only techs and hand them the bind conf files, explain the syntax for each component they ask for (volunteering would mean teaching them dns, they have to know what they want to enter just not the syntax, or they don't know DNS) and we'll see if they get it. If the most they know is that you can fill in a blank with an ip for domain x, www.domain, ftp.domain, and there is a spot for making sure mail.domain works then they DO NOT know DNS, they merely understand the CONCEPT of dns. Like a gun, understanding the concept is NOT knowing enough to be trusted to use it.

"And can use the same description for a guy who was a Unix and Checkpoint Firewall admin. Coaching to pass HR and interviews is nothing new, and it certainly isnt only MS (or even IT) related. Opinion via anecdote is generally a very poor substitute for fact."

You can even struggle through setting up a unix server in a passable amount of time with no prior experience with Unix. Prior experience with windows will make it even harder. You might slip through an interview but the first time your asked to actually DO something you'll be exposed. Unix in general is typically designed to be easy for people who already know every detail of what their doing. As opposed to being designed to be easy for the lowest common denominator.

"but anybody who bases a company's knowledge"

Again that assumption thing! You ASSUME I'm basing my judgements on office personel, implying secretaries, etc. I'm certainly not basing it on the developers themselves, they likely make up less than 10% of the staff at Microsoft. When I say tech I mean technician, someone who has actually touched the guts of a computer with understanding. And yes, their tech support is their face to the world, the training of that support is certainly a measure to judge the company by.

"So its MS's fault if they bundle the driver, and its MS's fault if they dont bundle the driver. Interesting take. How about this one- its only MS's fault if the driver and hardware is on the WHCL (Windows Hardware Compatibility List), which they personally test? I cant see how its logical to hold MS responsible for every single vendor's hardware and drivers. If I hire a crappy mechanic who puts in the wrong oil filter, and breaks some other stuff while he's at it, how on earth is the manufacture responsible? Try placing the blame with the party responsible, instead of acting like MS is some omnipotent god-like being. Because the only other viable alternative is for MS to restict who can and cant make hardwar

Re:Good for them

[FyRE666]

Well, you would be mistaken. Win32 architecture bears no resemblence to Apple's OS, but you would actually have to understand how they work to know that. Most people, like yourself, thing "Hmm, one has a GUI, and so does the other... they much be the same!" You are essentially saying that Ferrari ripped off Ford because they both have red cars with four tires and a steering wheel.

I see you're using a variation of Gate's "defence" when Apple took MS to court for stealing their OS (Gates actually used an analogy of a car's steering wheel). Interesting, since you claim it didn't happen, despite the overwhelming evidence, including MS having to buy stock in Apple, and supply web browser and office tools as part of the settlement. You're either extremely stupid, or ignorant of very recent history. BTW, I've used both Apple and MS OS's for many years, and I'm aware of the differences and similarities between them.

That analogy is equal parts stupid, paranoid, and incorrect. But, since you obviously dont really know Windows, I dont see why anybody should be expected to take your 'expert' opinion on the matter.

Well if that's the case, show me where I can download the source to XP so I can fix a few bugs ;-) No? Didn't think so. Bye bye troll ;-)

Re:Good for them

[SteelRat]

Also, please keep in mind that what t0ny says above, remember that it AD is just ldap with added kludge.

Many of the same caveats apply when running unix auth vs. ldap sso services.

Re:Good for them

[Ridgelift]

Now a good MCSE is a master at his/her craft and I admire his/her patience (hehe) and his/her ability to navigate and troubleshoot a poorly documented and closed source system.

I invested 5 years of my life trying to "master" Windows. That was the problem - you can never master Microsoft products. It all about "I can flail around in the dark better than you can". You can become very, very proficient, but master? Can't be done.

And that's why I don't do Windows anymore. I'm working on mastering Linux.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

or maybe the lawsuit was just a ploy by Apple to milk out some of MS's money. Apple v. Microsoft = Spike Lee v. "The Spike Network". But I guess extortion is ok when they do it to MS, right?

Perhaps Apple realized that they would probably lose the case, and their company was going down faster than a crack whore, so they accepted a compromise that would benefit both companies. But neither of us were really there, so we are all just guessing anyway.

Well if that's the case, show me where I can download the source to XP so I can fix a few bugs ;-) No? Didn't think so. Bye bye troll ;-)

Name some bugs. Cant do it? Bye bye moron.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

maybe your company should try hiring experienced and/or technically inclined people. Creating solutions isnt a chicken-or-egg problem. Maybe they should try making an SQL server and figuring the damn thing out?

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

As a matter of fact I AM an MCSE. Your assumptions are certainly not sound. You assume my dislike of windows and belief in it's instability are based on ignorance. You are wrong, they are based on experience and extensive knowledge.

Then I have to assume you just arent very good. Because, as I keep saying, there are lots of people building stable Windows servers and networks. Ive done it many times, so I know it can be done, and its not just a fluke.

A crimper on the other hand is used by REAL network technicians to secure literally hundreds of connections every day. Even 1 weak crimp could destroy your 99.999% uptime in an office. I'd argue it's one of the single most likely points of failure in the network.

Cat-5 Cable, $.50/foot. Crimp connectors, $.10 each. Crimp tool, $7.50. Checking your work, priceless.

If the most they know is that you can fill in a blank with an ip for domain x, www.domain, ftp.domain, and there is a spot for making sure mail.domain works then they DO NOT know DNS, they merely understand the CONCEPT of dns. Like a gun, understanding the concept is NOT knowing enough to be trusted to use it.

So in other workds, if you cant debug source code, you shouldnt be allowed to do data entry on a word processor. Nice analogy. How about people who admin things can do admin, and people who engineer things can fix problems when they arise? Nice division of labor, isnt it? I dont think people getting paid over $70k/year should be stuck doing hours of data entry work, but thats just my opinion. Oh ya, and also the opinion of MS, apparently. Try coming up with a valid point next time, thanks for playing.

You ASSUME I'm basing my judgements on office personel, implying secretaries, etc

You were the one who lumped them in with phone support people. I just said that I automatically disqualify somebody's opinion (yourself, in this case) who bases a company's tech knowledge on phone support people; you were just looking for a way to say that MS is stupid, and said something stupid. Just admit it and move on, because you arent fooling me, and most likely nobody else is reading this tripe.

Yup they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The only way out of that of course is to bundle a WORKING driver. A linux system is ALOT closer to plug and play, you plug hardware in, you boot, it detects it.

I would reply to that, but Im laughing so hard I can barely type. I hope you dont honestly believe that crap you are trying to claim as true.

Denial is nice isn't it? It was actually XP he was refering to. You don't count downtime for patches as outages? I do. I consider a reboot to reset the clock. Patches don't generally take a unix system down.

No, I consider an outage to be when the system crashes, stops responing, etc. Since the majority of places arent 24/7, staying late one or two nights a month after hours isnt a big deal. BTW, MS is making no reboot patches, but since you claim to be an MCSE I guess you already knew that... didnt you? BTW, how were you talking about XP? They dont have XP servers...

You don't exactly have much flexibility in terms of controlling what users do in 2k/XP.

Speak for yourself. I can control anything I want to on *my* networks.

You avoid those problems in the OS by working around them and choosing applications which don't make the system calls that go haywire. That's cheating. It's on the desktop that you find out what is broken in an OS. There are users misconfiguring, that's one thing, and then there is the OS breaking in response to a user action (shouldn't happen).

Nice bullshit. If anyone were reading it here, Im sure you would get modded up. However, just spewing metaphysical bullshit is too light on details. I dont see anything about using the OS and having it spontaneously combust like you are talking of. Just because I wo

Re:Good for them

[Slashamatic]

Regrettably the real documentation is missing. Where, for example, are the file formats for Exchange documented so I can repair it? Why do I always have to use utilities that often cause more damage than they solve?

Re:Good for them

[Slashamatic]

Name some bugs. Cant do it? Bye bye moron.

Um all the bugs to date, for instance. Why can't I buy I copy of Windows XP with the known bugs fixed? They knowingly sell defective products!!!!

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Why do they continue to release distros of Linux without the known bugs fixed? They knowingly release a defective product!!!!

Likewise with OSX, Unix, Opera, Sendmail [oh lord, Sendmail... possibly the most deeply flawed piece of software ever...], Mozilla, etc.

Re:Good for them

[Slashamatic]

Ok, demand your money back - you paid for it didn't you?

No, Microsoft have cut their own throats. Even The Economist is talking about liability now. Between installation of XP and downloading the 45MB+ of patches comes 1000 skr1pt k1dd1ez all queueing up to 0wn your machine.

My Linux was cut less than six months ago so I have some holes to fix. I haven't found one remastered copy of XP with the patches rolled up and it has been out for over 18 months!

Christ, I have seen pirate editions of XP in the market near Metro Avtovar, St. Petersburg) with the patches rolled up -- why the hell can't Microsoft do it?

Re:Good for them

[anonymous cupboard]

Why do they continue to release distros of Linux without the known bugs fixed?

No, I run Gentoo. It has all patches to date by the time installation finishes. Whilst the install is running, the system is locked down with no services running.

Please show me an up to date XP that I can download, and optimise for my machine.

Likewise with OSX, Unix, Opera, Sendmail [oh lord, Sendmail... possibly the most deeply flawed piece of software ever...], Mozilla, etc.

It appears like all Microsofties you are deeply confused as to what constitutes an operating system.

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

"there are lots of people building stable Windows servers and networks. Ive done it many times, so I know it can be done, and its not just a fluke"

Stable compared to what exactly?

"How about people who admin things can do admin, and people who engineer things can fix problems when they arise? Nice division of labor, isnt it? I dont think people getting paid over $70k/year should be stuck doing hours of data entry work, but thats just my opinion. Oh ya, and also the opinion of MS, apparently. Try coming up with a valid point next time, thanks for playing."

lol there is a whole lot of room between understanding the concept of DNS and debugging source code. The technician should be capable of fixing every problem that does NOT involve editing the source code as a minimum before deploying DNS in a production environment (or anything else for that matter).

Let's compare to something blatantly obvious (since your answer indicates your in the group I just mentioned who doesn't know how DNS works) a phillips screwdriver. If you understand the concept, you understand it's used for removing screws, but you don't know how. If you understand how it works, you know the concept and the application. Understanding the details of how it functions is a far cry from understanding how to forge the steel and mold the handle of the screwdriver.

"You were the one who lumped them in with phone support people. I just said that I automatically disqualify somebody's opinion (yourself, in this case) who bases a company's tech knowledge on phone support people; you were just looking for a way to say that MS is stupid, and said something stupid. Just admit it and move on, because you arent fooling me, and most likely nobody else is reading this tripe."

You should try going back and reading your own post before commenting. The first mention of "office personel" was by you. I said I had family and friends working at Microsoft, you assumed they were office personel. My cousin as it happens is one of the core developers working on Longhorn. He's also one of the first people who will tell you windows is unstable and insecure.

"I would reply to that, but Im laughing so hard I can barely type. I hope you dont honestly believe that crap you are trying to claim as true."

Why because you have no significant recent experience to base things on so you assume this is a laughable statement? Why don't you go out and fetch rh9 or even fedora and install it on typical hardware. The most you are likely to have to do is update with the vid card manufacturers driver to get 3d acceleration. A Mac does an even better job of plug and play. That's how it's supposed to work you know. You plug it in, it works. Unlike plug and pray systems you aren't supposed to have to load a driver disk.

"No, I consider an outage to be when the system crashes, stops responing, etc. Since the majority of places arent 24/7, staying late one or two nights a month after hours isnt a big deal. BTW, MS is making no reboot patches, but since you claim to be an MCSE I guess you already knew that... didnt you? BTW, how were you talking about XP? They dont have XP servers..."

I consider it an outage when the system is down for any reason whatsoever. Uptime is whatever answer I get when I type "uptime" at the console. I wasn't aware we were only talking about servers, I was under the impression we were talking about operating systems. Further, there are no shortage of people who use XP Pro as a small business server.

"I dont see anything about using the OS and having it spontaneously combust like you are talking of." Ah, I guess that would make you the first windows user never to see a BSOD in his life, congratulations. I know no shortage of users who have been merrily typing along in a word processor and then bam the system bluescreens.

"As for the safe bullshit, you really need to learn how to write analogous analogies; your example makes no sense, and really doesnt apply to anything on

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

LOL, where do you think they got those pirated copies? You HONESTLY believe the pirates were the ones who put in the patches?

I dont know specifically about the XP situation, since I mainly work on servers (and thus Win2k), but every time I get a new server, we get a disc with the latest SP inside for Win2k server. So I would imagine the OEM versions are always at the latest and greatest. Its just so much easier to do things like that when you dont have to put out a boxed product- send the new disc and thats it!

As far as liability, the only people taking stupidity like that are lawyers, who need to stir up bullshit to make more money. Even the class action suits only made money for the lawyers, so dont act like these guys are so altruistic.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Ah, I see. Apparently you suffer from the delusion that Gentoo is some security promised land. Psst.. your buffer overflows and arbitrary code executions are showing...

Also, I dont consider an 'installation' complete until I have installed, configured, and tested the server anyway. I dont see that any other OS is going to save me significant time on that, since testing really has little to do with the OS: the exact mechanism is just a detail. Its called "due dilligence"- you should try it some time!

It appears like all Microsofties you are deeply confused as to what constitutes an operating system.

Well, moron, we were talking Microsoft, which is a company (not an operating system). Also mentioned were IE, Outlook, IIS, etc. Last time I checked, THOSE werent operating systems either. It appears that like all true idiots, you are deeply confused as to what constitutes reading comprehension.

Re:Good for them

[Slashamatic]

The official release from MS (not the specials for corporate customers or MSDN subscribers) is bare. No SP.

The OEM release (prerecorded onto HD) is exactly what MS provide, no SP. They are not permitted by their license to offer anything else. The only time this changes is when something like 98SE comes out.

Seriously, how many dollars would it cost for MS to give customers a roll up release or a set of patches on CD when they but their OS? How much does rematering cost? Are they really that cheap?

Note that the Spb release I saw was from the local pirates. I know this because who else would bundle Office-XP on the same disk?

Re:Good for them

[anonymous cupboard]

Ah, Gentoo, means I get the latest stuff as I install it. Does XP do that? Can I download and compile XP in a secure environment? Was it ever compiled in a secure environment? Probably not because MS actively discourages quality and security because it compromises their bottom line. Did they ever stop firing those who objected to shoddy QA and industry bottom security in order to meet ship dates and cost targets?

Sorry, you misunderstood about operating systems. True, Gatesy doesn't get it nor his ogre in chief Balmer - which is why I can't extract the worlds most buggy browser from the operating system without a major headache. With IE, you get Outlook Express for free!!! True I believe Moz gives you an Email client as well but Moz's Email client is flawed by outlook standard - no arbitrary execution of code. Give me their raw kernel, and I mnight be able to make a secure system, but not with the crap they ship with it.

Still, the good thing about choosing Microsoft is that you can always blame the system when you can't configure for five nines. Nobody would believe an MS uptime of a year, let alone two (I have seen non-MS uptimes of 5 years, including rolling upgrades and cross platform migrations)!

As fordue dilligence, you are probably aware of it as a clapped out VC buzzword. It isn't when you have regulators on your back. You start with a policy defining data and service availability. If it is a disposable facility like an Internet cafe or a high school, fine then maybe MS is good enough. If you want to bet a billion dollars a day, then forget MS as a server unless you really like your chances.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

Does XP do that?

Its called Windows Update. You can also schedule it; but you already knew that, seeing how you are such an expert on what MS products can and cant do.

Can I download and compile XP in a secure environment?

I dont know; I guess it depends on how secure your environment is... MS isnt responsible for that. you seem to THINK your environment is pretty secure, but I cant say I have EVER heard of an exploit in the NT kernel which allowed somebody to compromise the system. So apparently you are less secure than you are trying to claim.

Was it ever compiled in a secure environment? Probably not because MS actively discourages quality and security because it compromises their bottom line

and you know this because you worked there, right? Otherwise you are just blathering stupid, ignorant nonsense.

which is why I can't extract the worlds most buggy browser from the operating system without a major headache

Oh, you mean Mozilla?. Or perhaps you were refering to Nutscrape... um, I mean Netscape? Or were you, by chance, refering to Opera? You need to be a little less vague. Actually, I have never used any of those, so I cant account for how shitty their uninstall programs are (aside from seeing how shitty their application security is).

True I believe Moz gives you an Email client as well but Moz's Email client is flawed by outlook standard - no arbitrary execution of code.

Oh really? Seems the open source community is trying to keep pace... BTW, I routinely remove Outlook Express from every server I set up, and its well documented, and pretty easy to find if you actually get off your lazy ass and look for it... but its so much easier to just complain!

Give me their raw kernel, and I mnight be able to make a secure system, but not with the crap they ship with it.

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you alone are way better than all the programmers they have working on this stuff at MS. What OS kernels have YOU developed, again? BTW, I did a little looking, and the only kernel exploits were corrected on Feb. 9 and Apr. 4-5 of 2002. Otherwise, no kernel exploits. So much for the claim that open source produces better quality. If you are so bloody good, why didnt you find this, any of these... or maybe some of this or that, or the other thing???

As fordue dilligence, you are probably aware of it as a clapped out VC buzzword.

Unlike yourself, who apparently brags that he can deploy servers right after loading the os (which updates to current with the patches, whoopy do! It saves you a tiny amount of time!). Maybe Im too conservative; I like to test my hardware and applications prior to deployment. But then again, Im not fixing the linux kernel and all those buggy web browsers in my spare time, either, so maybe I just have more free time than yourself. ...oh wait, you arent fixing them either...

You start with a policy defining data and service avail

Re:Good for them

[ssstraub]

Oh, I *agree* that some of the problem is my lack of knowledge about AD. :) I assume that there is a way to give the whole IT Team the rights to add/change printer groups on AD? Because I know I don't have many rights when it comes to AD on our system and they aren't going to give me them anytime soon. But if there's a seperate printer config account, then I see no reason why every IT worker shouldn't have access to it.

I've experienced a similar problem even trying to share a local (parallel/usb cable) printer between 2 AD users. We get around it by manually setting the printer up as an LPR port so that it becomes the default printer for any user on the machine, but doing that requires admin access.

Basically, what annoys me is that merely adding a printer to a machine requires an administrator get involved.

This is really 2 separate problems that I'm descibing now... One is AD and one is adding local printers w/o admin access.

Re:Good for them

[t0ny]

The official release from MS (not the specials for corporate customers or MSDN subscribers) is bare.

And I care about the home user why?

Note that the Spb release I saw was from the local pirates. I know this because who else would bundle Office-XP on the same disk?

Um, ya, its really hard to copy the OEM cd and put the office install directory in there. Also, just as an example of what of a know-nothing you are, I found this for you. So you can quit spreading your whiny stuipd "M$ doesnt bundle the SP, the hackers do" FUD.

Re:Good for them

[Slashamatic]

Show me the source, I will inspect it. MS tried this on the German Bundestag, but the moment that they said they would invite competent programmers to check out their security (as opposed to the politicians that MS could buy off), MS ducked out. What are they frightened of? OS technology isn't that radical. They admit themselves that opening their sources is a major security risk.

Um, I was referring to XP pro. However, why should you care about the legions of robots that XPinsecurity is unleashing against the Internet? Regrettably my networks have to sometimes interconnect via the networks flooded with messsages from the failed Microsoft programmers.

As for your link, yep, sure but we aren't talking about Windows 2K. We are talking about the pile of shit that MS has been forcing down everyone's throats for the last two years called XP.

Here is a challenge for you, what are the minimum nuumber of services a Windows 2K or XP system needs to run? It seems that even MS doesn't know according to their memos on the conversion of hotmail.

Oh and as for the Spb release, they had rewritten the sutorun to install one or the other. It didn't help me though, I needed an O2K disk urgently because a security update to Outlook demanded the original. Small problem, it was an urgent update and my official original was several thousand miles away. Thanks MS, thanks a bundle. This is when I moved critical stuff to Linux.

Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Rex Code]

I went to a real engineering school to learn Computer Engineering (a 4 year EEE + CS program), and every time I see a company create a certification program that takes less than a month to become an "engineer", well... it makes me cringe. I know in other parts of the world that it's not legal to abuse terminology like that, and wish the US would adopt some similar standards. This dilutes the prestige associated with earning an actual engineering degree (really, there is some!).

I know the difference between a real engineer and a fake one, but I'm not so sure the average guy on the street understands the distinction. I also suspect people in hiring positions give a lot more weight to a certification that pretends to be an engineering degree than they really should.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, YOU would not be able to call yourself an engineer simply because you're holding a degree.

Get off your high horse, have a look at the origins and meaning of the word "engineer". Take a deep breath and relax, as nobody who needs a bridge built is gonna hire and MCSE because they saw the word engineer.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[JayAEU]

This is indeed very true. The company I work at also has this tendency to look for such pseudo-engineers. Being an engineer myself (MSc. in manufacturing automation) I keep telling them to look for real qualification that lasts, not just short lived and narrow focused stuff that can be acquired in a few weeks' time.

Becoming a real engineer takes time - a lot of time - digging down deep into the core of the matter, not just scratching the surface and pretending to know what's going on.

Unfortunately, the original poster is absolutely right in assuming that the average Joe on the street (and it seems in some personnel departments as well) does not make the right distinction in this regard.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[BeerMilkshake]

Of course, if IT became a Profession (like engineering, medicine, law, real-estate, accounting,...) then there would be a regulating body with real power to stop people from practicing when they do not have the necessary credentials.

Such a body would also help educational institutions in preparing their curricula and would promote ethical practice.

A Profession of IT would also elevate the standard of practice and protect our careers a little better than the current 'wild west' system.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[JayAEU]

I think you're missing the point here. The term "engineer" as it is used nowadays implies that someone knows the scientific theory and is able to apply it in real world situations.

Most certifications abuse the term "engineer" as far as the scientific theory is concerned. The attendants are fed with pseudo-information and half-truths, leading them to believe they are worth their salt in real-life situations.

Suffice it to say that I have seen enough of those "engineers" fail when confronted even with the simplest of their original test scenarios.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[MisterP]

Most "real engineers" I work with and know personally seem to have spent more time learning about how they're better than everyone else than actually aquiring any skills.

This is why they usually end up getting pushed into management, so they get out of the way of the people who actually know what they're doing.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Graelin]

I went to a real engineering school to learn Computer Engineering (a 4 year EEE + CS program), and every time I see a company create a certification program that takes less than a month to become an "engineer", well... it makes me cringe.

That's funny, I get the same feeling when I hear people claim that their 4 year degree makes them an engineer. Last I checked you need to know the math and also be able to apply it. (It's that last part that university cannot teach.)

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The problem, IMO, is that people want the word "engineer" to mean all sorts of things it shouldn't. My job title is Software Engineer -- but it shouldn't be; it should be Programmer, or Developer, because IMO what I do isn't engineering at all. (What I really do, when you get right down to it, is applied math.) To me, the crucial distinction is, or ought to be, that an engineer makes actual physical objects, whether those objects are airplanes (AE), buildings (CE), cars (ME), or circuits (EE). The expansion of "engineering" into things that have no physical existence, such as software, goes hand-in-hand with other abuses of the language such as calling widgets on a Web page "technologies." I'll barely buy "network engineer," since a large part of setting up a network is determining its physical layout. But people who maintain networks others have set up aren't engineers; they're mechanics.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[gregmac]

I know the difference between a real engineer and a fake one, but I'm not so sure the average guy on the street understands the distinction.

Well, it's also something that's potentially harmful. There is a reason that universities need to be accredited to offer engineering degrees, and that once you become a professional engineer (PEng) you can lose that license if you don't do your job properly.

A lot of people don't realize that calling yourself an 'engineer' carries the same sort of weight and responsibility as calling yourself a doctor or a lawyer. You have people's lives in your hands (and often on a bigger scale than doctors - when doctors screw up, one patient dies.. when engineers screw up, bridges fall down and many people die). You can have your engineering license revoked for bad pratice. And just like doctors and lawyers, you can get in a lot of trouble for praticing engineering without a license.

I've met a lot of MCSE's that couldn't solve their way out of a cardboard box, and yet, they have the word 'engineer' in their title. And these are the people designing and implementing often mission-critical systems that our society depends on.

The PEO brought Microsoft Canada to court over this issue, and although Microsoft will still use the MSCE title, they (and people holding the title) are only allowed to use the acronym MSCE or full title, and are not allowed to call themselves simply 'engineers'. A lot more information on this can be found at PEO's Software Engineering site.

Basically, Microsoft is not willing to change the title (citing it would cost them too much, and they like the branding it has), and want to continue using the term 'engineer'. The CCPE and the various provincal bodies (PEO, APEGGA, etc) are now talking enforcement, saying anyone that misrepresents themselves is facing $50,000 fines.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll!

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[iggymanz]

yes, they should be called "technicians" and "operators".....I've held the title of "software engineer" and "systems engineer" before, but that's baloney. I've also held real engineering jobs & have degree in "engineering physics", and that's a whole different world altogether.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[shaitand]

"I also suspect people in hiring positions give a lot more weight to a certification that pretends to be an engineering degree than they really should."

Undoubtedly true, but equally true is that companies give a lot more weight to a degree than they should period. Generally if you take out the courses that aren't really needed for doing the job you cut down that 4yrs to 3yrs, if you reprepare the material to be absorbed by the highest common denominator instead of the lowest, you chop it down to about 3-6 Months.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[mr_lithic]

In Britain, an engineer is someone who fixes the photocopier. It is simply a technician who may need to troubleshoot.

I find it a shame that the term "engineer" has been downgraded in this way. Maybe North American engineers need to find a new label.

Application Scientists.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike the engineer-wannabes who have replied to you suggesting your point is irrelevant or pompous, I agree with you.

If people started advertising themselves as "Microsoft Certified Systems Physician" or "Novell Certified Linux Doctor" the abuse of the title would be obvious. The problem is that the relevant organizations (such as the IEEE) have done a piss-poor job of protecting the investment their members have made.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the U.S. what you need is to have worked some number of years for a Professional Engineer and passed a rigorous exam. Only then can you advertise the title of "Engineer".

I get the feeling you just wanted to poo-poo someone's comment but didn't really have anything to say.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Um. The difference between the professions you name above on one hand, and IT on the other, is that there isn't one giant monopoly corporation that is The Face Of [Engineering|Medicine|etc.] in the public mind. I very much fear that any national or international regulating body with legal power would become a tool of that one giant monopoly corporation, or possibly a consortium of that corporation and couple of others ... and true software innovation would effectively grind to a halt.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[drinkypoo]

To me, engineering implies understanding. Anyone who's built houses (as part of a crew) for a while and can read the building code can build a house which will meet code and stand up. An engineer can build a house which resists sagging, doesn't creak in the wind, and stands up through earthquakes that level the neighbors even though they are perfectly sturdy houses. Most anyone can learn to do at least rudimentary programming with lots of rules (VB, for example) but a software engineer makes every decision conciously. They know the consequences of their decisions, if they do such and such it will mean this down the road.

It's entirely possible to reach that level without any directed study, though the whole reason we have schools is that we have found that having someone teach you is a much more rapid way to learn than figuring it out for yourself. Frankly I don't think that we should put so much effort on accreditation of any sort. Your accomplishments (your actions) are the only thing which are capable of defining you.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent two years in an engineering program in college, and I would have to say that the vast majority of the people in the program were dumb as stumps. Sure, they design build a bridge that wouldn't fall down, but they lacked college-level reading and critical thinking skills, had no social or artistic skills, and their politics were purely reactionary. I'd be very afraid to see any of these guys in management.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Jesrad]

A lot of people don't realize that calling yourself an 'engineer' carries the same sort of weight and responsibility as calling yourself a doctor or a lawyer.

In Italy you have to "Ingeniere" before the name of engineers just like you add "Dottore" to the names of people with a PhD. In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like an unqualified post moddded by unqualified people on a feel-good basis. Apparently the 'last you checked' was a previous life, math and its application are the core of any Engineering degree. What the hell do you think is taught? (And I say 'think' because it's obvious you're clueless about the reality of the situation.)

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[BeerMilkshake]

I agree that there has to be an organization to push for establishment of a Profession. I assume that medicine and civil engineering became professions because the government(s) demanded it, for the good of public safety.

Governments will someday push IT into a profession when the stakes get high enough. Example Texas, as cited in Steve McConnell's 'After the Gold Rush'.

Meanwhile, only M$ has the clout. Despite how I feel about M$, one good thing they have done is to push PMP certification (see http://pmi.org) for their project management.

Despite my last paragraph, I agree that large corporations should not be the sponsor, because they have an obvious conflict of interest, and true innovation would indeed slow.

If we can make a Profession outside of any one corporation (or cartel), I believe innovation will accelerate. The reason is that the level of practice in IT could elevate to higher levels of maturity where we would enjoy higher profitability, higher customer satisfaction, and a higher project success rate.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[__past__]

Most "real engineers" I work with and know personally seem to have spent more time learning about how they're better than everyone else than actually aquiring any skills.

When I think of the "real engineers" I work with and know personally, I know why it takes them that long.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Afrosheen]

I always thought the engineer was the guy who built, or helped to design and build, the photocopier itself. You get a tech out to troubleshoot it and fix it, per the engineer's troubleshooting docs.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[saforrest]

In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.

It's the same in Canada: well, in the province of Ontario, anyway. Universities giving out engineering degrees must satisfy a fairly rigid set of criteria imposed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and no one is allowed to use the word "Engineer" otherwise.

Engineers can even act as the guarantor on a passport.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[mahbidness]

As a sidenote to this comment, there's an interesting interview with Peter Denning, past president of the ACM, talking about the future of the IT "Profession", and what being an IT professional would or should entail. Dated March, 2000. Take a gander.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[gregmac]

To me, the crucial distinction is, or ought to be, that an engineer makes actual physical objects, whether those objects are airplanes (AE), buildings (CE), cars (ME), or circuits (EE).

But the problem is that more and more things rely on software to do what extensive arrays of electronics used to do. For example, an airplane is now controlled by many computer systems - those systems are vital to the functioning of that aircraft. Why shouldn't that programming be properlly engineered, since the old all-electronic counterpart used to be?

Very often PLC's replace large racks of relays, timers, and miles of cable, that play vital control functions for buildings (fire systems, elevators, water systems, ..). It's easier to wire a PLC, since you only have to connect each I/O point into a terminal, the software can be written once (and adapted), and it's faster to write software than it is to wire. If you need to change something, it's a simple download to upgrade the software, with a 2 second downtime on the equipment while it reboots, instead of a few hours while someone rewires it.

Most jurisdictions now recognize "Software Engineering" as a licensed form of engineering (this has happened just in the last couple of years). Just remember that "software" goes far beyond the program you use to browse the web or write a memo to your boss with.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[feronti]

(What I really do, when you get right down to it, is applied math.)

Isn't engineering by definition applied math? Engineering isn't about building things. It's about designing things. For example, I know a couple of automotive engineers who got into that field because they loved to work on cars. They were quite disappointed to discover that most of what they did as engineers involved nothing with the physical cars themselves. They were merely applying known principles to design cars that others built.

The main problem with software engineering is not that it's not engineering... it's that the principles of design are still very much in flux due to the youth of the discipline. I have the good fortune of attending a university where computer science is a part of the engineering school, and while we don't get nearly the level of respect as the other engineering disciplines (which is fair, my university's primary mission is actually to supply the automotive industry with mechanical and electrical engineers) we are still considered engineers by anyone outside of the school of engineering. We have to complete the same mathematics core as the engineers. The only real difference is that the artifacts we create are not physical.

Defining engineering as merely physical objects implies that anyone who builds software does not do a thorough analysis of the design. This is the kind of attitude that makes people think that good programmers are a dime a dozen.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entirely possible to reach that level without any directed study, though the whole reason we have schools is that we have found that having someone teach you is a much more rapid way to learn than figuring it out for yourself. Frankly I don't think that we should put so much effort on accreditation of any sort. Your accomplishments (your actions) are the only thing which are capable of defining you.

This sounds like somebody who hasn't gone through a real engineering program. I suppose it's possible to "bootstrap" yourself to the level of knowledge required to design synthetic aperture radar systems, but I'd say it's pretty damned difficult.

I suppose it's also possible to learn enough medicine on the side to be a reasonably good physician. But we don't do that--because it's important to have a physician who does things right from when he or she starts work. That's also true of aeronautical engineers and civil engineeres. Whose building foundations do you practice on? Which space shuttle does an unaccredited aeronautical engineer work on while she's building her resume?

Maybe this way of doing things causes some pretty effective people not to get hired. But it's security for NASA to hire engineers who are certified as competent in their field rather than relying on a resume that may include projects in which the person was only peripherally involved.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Copid]

The other difference is that I can go to anybody who calls himself a CPA and have a good shot at getting my taxes done correctly, whereas if I go to a random IT worker, he'll as likely as not make a tremendous mess of my IT infrastructure.

People use the same arguments to bitch about the FDA. Yes, heavy regulation drives up the cost of drugs, drives down the amount of competition, and certainly filters out a lot of viable treatments. At the same time, if there were no FDA and the drug industry ran like the IT industry does, most of the medicines on your local drugstore's shelf would be placebos if you're lucky or downright harmful if you're not. Then, you'd be stuck with going through a pharmacist for everything because you'd need somebody certified and knowledgable to protect you from the industry. And believe me, your pharmacist would be charging a pretty penny to do it.

I'm all for allowing industry to exist largely unregulated if it's not an important industry. IT is becoming a truly crucial industry, though. Anyway, I'm drifting off topic. The grandparent's point was that if IT workers want the respect that engineers get (or used to get, before every yahoo started calling himself an engineer), their industry needs to be worthy of respect. Right now, it's just like docterin' in the old west. Hang a shingle and you're ready to go. That's not an industry whose workers should be called "engineers."

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Copid]

I can buy 4 years to 3 years pretty easily. Maybe even 2 1/2 if the person is working hard and fast. In that amount of time, somebody could become an entry level engineer in training if they're really good. However, 3-6 months is plain bullshit. You must be 1) trolling, 2) a person who has never so much as attempted a real engineering degree, or 3) an engineer who wants us all to think you're far smarter than anybody else.

The other possibility is that you think "getting the job done" in engineering is the same as "getting the job done" in some sort of technician job or system administration job. Sure, you can train somebody to be a sysadmin in 6 months of intensive work. They'll probably be decent (nowhere near what a really experienced one is, but able to pass for a competent admin). Taking a person from high school and training them to do integrated circuit design in six months is basically impossible. There are a handful who could do it, but they're the same people who have PhDs in physics by the time they're 20. What you're claiming is just not reality.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Isn't engineering by definition applied math?

Math is an important tool for engineers, but I'd argue that it's not central to what engineering is. Consider the great engineering works of the ancient Romans; without anywhere near the benefit of modern math, they built structures that will almost surely outlast all but the best of today's construction.

In contrast, a program is math given form and power; a better definition of "applied math" would, IMO, as both a mathematician and a computer scientist by training, be hard to find. This is particularly true of the kind of database work I do. Yeah, it's possible to hack together a DBS without understanding set theory, but it is nearly impossible to do it well.

Defining engineering as merely physical objects implies that anyone who builds software does not do a thorough analysis of the design.

Only if you assume that engineers are the only people who design things. But of course they're not. Writers design books, lawyers design cases, bankers design rules for moving money around, military officers design battle plans ... are these people therefore "word engineers" and "law engineers" and "financial engineers" and "war engineers"? Of course not. Design is an important job of almost all jobs, including many that have nothing to do with engineering in any meaningful sense of the word.

Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal

[sonam]

This thread strikes right at the heart of many of today's IT industry problems. Until IT is treated like a profession, and those who call themselves IT professionals are held to some standard, it will continue to be difficult for us to make a living. Even the electrical and plumbing trades have standards which keep people from calling themselves tradesman and doing substandard work.

Don't get me wrong; I am not a big advocate of regulation. However, if forklift divers can get a certification and land a 160K a year job as an engineer we will never get the respect in corporate America we deserve because there are so many substandard IT people. Now that security has finally become an issue, which can significantly affect the bottom line, maybe there will be a drive for standardized curriculums in schools and a governing body such as IEEE or ACM who could begin setting the professional standards we need.

Re:Oh no.....

[MegaThawt]

Can't Slashdot think up any new jokes? Of course not.

OK, here's something new...

Q. Why did the MSCE cross the road?
A. Someone told him/her to.

Q. Why did the Certified Linux Eng. cross the road?
A. Someone told him/her not to.

(ok ... so only the "/her" part was new)

Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great. Another reason for non-engineers to call themselves engineers.

Re:Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

This from someone who more than likely went to school for 4 years to get his engineering degree.

While you were taking longer and paying more for your 4 year I've been out getting real world experience. I hope to compete against you in an interview someday. 6 years of experience vs 4 years of college, guess who wins?

Re:Bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

While you were taking longer and paying more for your 4 year I've been out getting real world experience. I hope to compete against you in an interview someday. 6 years of experience vs 4 years of college, guess who wins?

That depends. Will you be applying for an engineering job? If so, you're not even going to show up on the radar. I'd like to see the average joe with 6 year's "hands on" experience but no schooling do what I do daily as an electrical engineer. My guess is that, no matter how useful you are at whatever your practical experience is in, you can't do my job without some schooling... Lots of schooling, in fact.

If you're applying for a sysadmin job, you'll probably win. But that's not engineering. I'm sorry. It's just not. The fact that you could beat me out in an interview as a Linux administrator does not make you an engineer any more than the fact that Michael Jordan can beat me one on one basketball makes him an engineer.

I'm not saying that certifications like that are worthless, or that the people who have them don't know what they're doing. I'm saying that it's simply not engineering, and the term "engineer" is being eroded away to the point of being meaningless by these certifications.

How long does it last?

[iamsure]

The Novell page doesnt seem to reference how long the cert is good for - even in the faq..

Anyone know?

Re:How long does it last?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Novell page doesnt seem to reference how long the cert is good for

The certs are good for 1 year, after which you have to pay Versign $599 per year. :)

Good morning

[haraldm]

This has been available for at least 6 months now. Sleep well.

Re:Good morning

[iggymanz]

man, are you are going to be unhappy in 2 months when this is duped

Re:Good morning

[haraldm]

Setting a world record for dupes?

Re:Good morning

[iggymanz]

well, we've recently even had dupe from a previous decade, being passed off as current event

Re:Good morning

[haraldm]

ROTFL.

I mean the moderators are still doing a good job but sometimes it's really funny. Could it be better if posters had to enter some keywords (hey, Bayesian filtering comes to my mind) which are compared to a database before presenting an article to the moderators? A voting system among a couple of moerators could help too but that would make publishing an article a lot slower.

Ah - reinventing the wheel.

Does This Mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some guy who gets the NCL cert, might be called "The Man From Uncle"?

Ancient TV show for the youngin's; those who watched it are probably groaning to realize their age.. :P

Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

What is an engineer in your book?

Someone who jumps through all the various PE exams and pays dues to some organization every year?

Re:Give me a break

[iggymanz]

1. someone who can design and build (or have someone else build) a device or system from scientific principles

2. someone who drives a choo-choo

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like a physician is "just" someone who passed some exams and pays dues to the AMA every year?

Re:Give me a break

[inode_buddha]

How about my Dad? Master's deg 1959, MIT. PhD 1970, SUNY. Aerospace engineer, systems integration. And yes, he subscribes to a few dues-paying places and gets lots of books/magazines.

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least, somebody who does more than administer Linux boxes. The people who scream "I have practical experience" are usually the ones who have never actually seen what a real engineering program looks like. The talk like those of us who do engineering have never done anything but go to school. Most of us have done both, and actually have some perspective on this.

I have news. No amount of "real world experience" is going to makes you a qualified electrical engineer. There is no job that you can get out of high school or a technical school that will fast track you to becoming an aeronautical engineer just by "doing." Sometimes, you actually have to learn some math, do some theory on a whiteboard, and do several months or more of design work before ever soldering any parts together. And yes, sometimes, when you're doing something important, like designing skyscrapers, you need to prove to an accreditation organization that you have your shit together.

How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Certified Linux Information Technologist?

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly wouldn't want to rub one of those the wrong way.

harrumph

Whine Whine!

[boobsea]

Here we have something called common sense. If you hire someone who isn't qualified to do the work of someone with an engineering degree then its your fault.

Re:Whine Whine!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but it's not the fault of the real engineer who didn't get the job, either. It's also not the fault of your unsuspecting clients who are going to have crap products (or a tumbling skyscraper, depending on the field) dumped on them.

Re:Oh no.....

[shaitand]

get rid of the /her part, the grammar trolls will eat you alive. him/her is not english, it's Megathawtian. In English you would simply say "him" which used in this context is genderless.

This is not new

[voideng]

Novell mentioned it was comming in '02 and announced it at Brain Share '03.

Re:Oh no.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you'd use 'they' or 'them' for genderless pronouns.

Certifications are overrated

[Robber Baron]

The only reason to have a certification is to be able to prove to someone who doesn't have a clue about computers that you might know what you're doing, ie: it's something to flash the HR lepton who has concocted a bunch of hiring "qualifications" that they themselves don't understand. I've held an MCSE for nearly 5 years now and I still have yet to be asked to produce it. I'm just glad somebody else paid for it. A certification is no replacement for the problem solving skills that only experience can teach you, but try telling that to some HR drone. That's one of the reasons I decided to go the self-employed route. For some weird reason, it's a hell of a lot easier to bid a support contract for a company than it is to get hired by them, even though you may be doing the exact same thing for more money!

Re:Certifications are overrated

[__past__]

A certification is no replacement for the problem solving skills that only experience can teach you

Obviously not, it is supposed to be an indication that you have these skills. Of course, a lot of existing certifications are not (but academic grades may be even worse in that regard), but you don't expect HR drones to test potential employees under real-world conditions, do you? They just cannot do that, they'd have to simulate things like your familiarity with the network, your frustration level after working there for a few months/years, the detailed nature of their systems, coping with office politics, recognizing problems if you don't know that there is something to fix (like there always is in an exam) etc.

At least the Novell thing seems to let you work on a real computer, like the RHCE exams and unlike many others. Could be worse, I say.

Re:Certifications are overrated

[gr8fulnded]

I suppose it depends where you work. I could care less about fancy titles myself, but like you said, it gives HR the warm and fuzzies. However, dollars give me the warm an fuzzies and for whatever reason, the gov't loves to pay for certs (I'm a gov't contractor).

Yeah, I'm solaris 8 certed. Woopdeefuckingdoo. I was bored and the testing center was there. For $300 out of my pocket (reimbursed by my company), I can make an extra 5k a year. You do the math.

This has nothing to do with SuSE

[Anonymous Coward]

The CLE program was well underway long before SuSE was acquired, the certification is to test candidates knowledge of running Novell services for linux (which is now in beta testing, and we here are a beta site). As you probably know by Netware 7.0 Novell has the intention to offer all services on either the netware kernel or linux kernel. That is what this certification is about, not SuSE, please get the facts straight.

No Problem

[plopez]

In every case I have seen, including folks who had thier MBA paid for by a employer, as part of the hiring package when they moved to a new company the new employer bought out the contract. If an new employer really wants you then they will do what it takes to get you. Note also that in some cases retraining is covered by student loans or other aid and in the US can also be tax deductable. There is more than one way to handle retraining expense.

Re:No Problem

[iggymanz]

2 years or more ago, yes....but things are quite sucky here with employment offers at many companies in the N. Illinois area at present. no buying out former training/education contracts, no relocation assistance, and my favorite, contributing $100-200 a month to healthcare plan of your choice, that's your "benefits".

Re:Oh no.....

[shaitand]

'they' or 'them' is an option, 'him' is genderless in the appropriate context regardless. Either way is correct but 'they' or 'them' not actually commonly used in practice. 'him" or "his" is still and will likely always be the most grammatically correct and popularly correct answer to this problem.

In any case, I certainly won't be changing MY use of english to appease a Femmenazi anymore than I will to appease a grammar/spelling nazi.

Re:Oh no.....

[KoolDude]

ok ... so only the "/her" part was new

Hey Georgy, is that you ?

First job post!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, dice.com reported the first job posting for a Novell Certified Linux Engineer! The drawback is that it requires 3+ years as a NCLE.

Hmmm. Any old timers remember the 60's spy show "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."? Now we have the man from N.C.L.E. It would be quite fitting to show up to work in a Tuxedo.

Re:One of the questions is:

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE

I'm proud to be lazy!

[WolfVenge]

The adjective lazy means, according to Merriam-Webster Online: disinclined to activity or exertion

I suggest that any good technically competent person is lazy, and someone I'd rather hire. Put yourself in a supervisory role for a moment. Who would you rather hire:

1. the person who enjoys running from fire to fire and is demonstrably active at all times
2. The person who works diligently to prevent those fires from occurring in the first place.

The second person, disliking the "fireman" syndrome so common in support departments, would have to be defined as lazy in that he/she is disinclined to work putting out fires. One can argue that the time spent in preventing the fires in the first place disqualifies the person from being called lazy. It's a shame that upper management tends to look at hard numbers, and it is much more difficult to provide a number for prevented problems, than it is to provide a number for solved problems. Upper management sees that person A solved 30 problems, person B ( the lazy one ) solved 10 problems in the same time period. However, management often does not quantify the extra work person B did to prevent those 20 problems, they just give person A great praise, and quietly replace person B for "underperforming".

Suffice it to say, I'd rather hire the lazy ones.

Re:I'm proud to be lazy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a lazy one. From time to time I make certain to point out how much better the machines run since I got there ... expressing relief that the days of running from fire to fire seem to be over and now 90% of my work day is spent making things better as a whole.

I make a point of contrasting last year (constant downtime) with this year ... hardly any downtime.

Unfortunately, that has the PHB's running to me with a constant barrage of new projects. My predecessor just stood around and waited for something to break (it was never a long wait). I run around buried under new projects.

Since there is no additional pay (he was not fired ... he eventually left of his own accord), I'm not so certain that my way is actually any better.

I will say this much. Last year I had to fight tooth and claw to get even the simplest of supplies. This year the path is paved, lit and patrolled by two guys who each come around at least once a week to see if I need anything. I think management knows who they have working for them. But if they don't do something about my anemic paycheck, I won't be there much longer. I just got a 20 cent raise ... and that is as much an insult as it is a raise. I don't begrudge them a reasonable profit on my efforts, but I am a SPOF on many thousands of dollars a day worth of production. I think it is time to pay me accordingly since I probably average about 2 man hours a week downtime out of the nearly 100 employees in our plant that I support.

Bleah ... never mind the man behind the curtain ... this topic just hit a sore point. Because I do excellent work, I get more piled on me. My predecessor did a crummy job but had free time to just stand around and was hailed as a hero for fixing the same machines twice a week.

Re:Women and shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Data(robot) teach Geordi(blind) how to paint?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

that post better be seeing some +Funny *REAL* soon...

Re:Fake "engineer" ? Oh come on...

[McSnarf]

Anybody not knowing the difference between a "MCSE" or "CNE" and a "real" engineer does not deserve better. The average guy on the street is not usually in a position to hire engineers. But surprise - HR managers DO know the difference.
Would you mix up a MD with a Doctor of Metaphysics ?

12 steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't step one to admit that you have a problem and accept responsibilities for your actions?

You sound like you are still wallowing in denial!

Good job as a garbage collector

[RevMike]

I would, but it will cost you most-positive-fixnum dollars. But at least if you fail, you can still get a good job as a garbage collector.

I'm thinking of pursuing a career as a garbage collector. I'm not sure if I want to follow a reference count system or a mark and sweep system. Can you offer any advice? What skill set will get me a better carrer?

Thanks in advance.

The ol' FUD mill

[t0ny]

That sounds like a good MCSE Motto: "If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior."

Hmm, I think "Im rubber, youre glue", or perhaps "I know you are, but what am I" would have been more the more appropriate fifth grade mentality response, but I suppose yours will work.

I do not need an abstraction layer protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface.

Hmmm, the Hardware Abstraction Layer doesnt do anything LIKE that... sounds like you are just swinging around jargon in an attempt to look like you know what you are talking about... The HAL was something MS used to make NT independent of the processor it was running on; at one time there were HALs for RISC and i386. They moved away from that direction for the most part, but there are still seperate uni- and multi- processor HALs. Also, there are now 64-bit versions of the HAL, for both Intel and AMD.

I wouldnt call that protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface (whatever thats supposed to mean).

I do not need a monopoly telling me what I can and can't do with the hardware I bought. I do not need forced upgrades, poor security, bloated code, and a GHz or better procesor to type a letter or browse the internet.

I use Windows, and I have none of those things. Just more anti-MS FUD, but I suppose we are in the right place for it...

Most of all, I don't need Clippy to help me do my work!

Hmmm, Ive never used Clippy myself. Honestly, I dont see why a little cartoon character face on a help file should generate such paranoia, but people are afraid of midgets and clowns, too.

Linus, Raymond, RMS, Cox and crew do not care if I upgrade my motherboard or get a new hard drive, so why do I have to get permission from Microsoft when I try it with XP?

Ive never had a problem with product activation, but thats probably because I always use the enterprise version. However, even people I know who use XP Home have never had an issue with activation. Score another one in the accute paranoia box.

Re:The ol' FUD mill

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not need forced upgrades, poor security, bloated code, and a GHz or better procesor to type a letter or browse the internet. I use Windows, and I have none of those things.

Yeah, dude you have XP on a Packard bell 486DX-2/66, 4 gb hd and 64mb ram! Try again, with the Pro-MS FUD!

Ive never used Clippy myself. Honestly, I dont see why a little cartoon character face on a help file should generate such paranoia, but people are afraid of midgets and clowns, too.
No, I just don't want to pay for bullshit I don't need, I don't want a corporate product with cartoons and easter eggs wasting resources, and I expect a reputable company to spend their development time making a secure, light product, instead of hiding cartoons, backdoors, remote holes in with cutsie animated nonsense.
I am afraid of MS fanboys, yes-men and bootlickers, though!

Ive never had a problem with product activation, but thats probably because I always use the enterprise version. However, even people I know who use XP Home have never had an issue with activation. Score another one in the accute paranoia box.


If you don't mind paying twice for windows XP I guess you can get the enterprise edition. I am a small business, I have better things to spend money on than two copies of an operating system. Or do you expect me to believe that you donate the OEM versions to charity? I doubt if you do, since that would be a violation of the restrictive license you signed. Does your enterprise license cover your home use? check the fine print before the BSA comes knockin'


Troll on tZEROknee!
PS: get a handle on the apostrophe, it's your friend, just like the paperclip


--
an enterprise license Abusing Copier

Newspeak engineer

[Anonymous Coward]

Domestic engineer
Sanitation engineer
text engineer
(Name your product) certified engineer

I prefer Combat Engineer!

Three Anecdotes - All True

[Rick.C]

I did the NT 4.0 MCSE thing back in '98 at the request of my former employer (to make me a more marketable consultant).

- One of the students in a class had a photographic memory. He didn't understand why everyone didn't just read the book and go take the exam while the book was still in short-term memory.

- The Sr. VP where I work as a mainframe sysprog asked me if I knew anyone who was good at Windows debugging. I told him I knew some MCSE types. He said that if his IT department were a karate dojo, "MCSE" would be equivalent to "white belt" (rank beginner).

- An instructor in an SQL Server class related the tale about a forklift operator who got laid off. He kept seeing job ads for "MCDBA" and asked around to find out what that meant. He didn't have the cash to actually take the courses but he bought the books and passed the exam (through luck, I guess) on the 14th attempt. He landed a job making $160K per year and kept it for six months before they realized he didn't know beans. He ended up $80K richer, though.

Re:Three Anecdotes - All True

[iggymanz]

$160K per year!!!????? And I've been wasting my life in the Unix/Linux/World for 13 years? Dang, go Microsoft!!!! I'll be Bill Gates ass-rachet!!! Seriously, I've found salaries like that to be very much the exception to the rule - most DBA's I know make less than half of that.

Re:Three Anecdotes - All True

[Rick.C]

$160K per year!!!?????

That's what the instructor said. It was 1998. The bubble was still growing. Who knows, it may have been a limited-term contract job.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Just the other day, a couple of friends were asking what Novell was good for. Now we know...

sort of.

Three Anecdotes - All True-Third wheel training.

[Anonymous Coward]

" An instructor in an SQL Server class related the tale about a forklift operator who got laid off. He kept seeing job ads for "MCDBA" and asked around to find out what that meant. He didn't have the cash to actually take the courses but he bought the books and passed the exam (through luck, I guess) on the 14th attempt. He landed a job making $160K per year and kept it for six months before they realized he didn't know beans. He ended up $80K richer, though."

That's one of the things I like about OSS. You don't have to "fake it". You can go get your books and "real software", with "eBay hardware", and practice to your hearts content. Want to learn Java? No problem. Want to learn EJB? No problem. Build your own CISCO network. So is there any material out there for the person who wants to take that route to certification? Or to a career for that matter?

Novell's Linux distros

[smartfart]

...but it doesn't require any knowledge at all of the two Linux distributions that they now own.

Two? Which two? SuSE I know about... are you referring to Ximian (which is a desktop shop, not a Linux distro)?

Re:Novell's Linux distros

[Twid]

You are correct, my mistake. More correctly, I should have said that the training doesn't involve SuSE or Ximian at all.

Gentoo!

[Trejkaz]

So when do we get Gentoo Certified Linux Zealot?

Why oh why PDF formatted docs?

[crush]

The only way to get more information on this topic from the SuSE website is to download the PDF formatted docs.

I appreciate the presentation-control aspects that PDF gives to documents, but I don't think that it's too much to ask that a simple webpage with text information on it be provided as an alternative. I realize this is slightly OT, but in the slim hope that some SuSE webmaster/PR people are reading the thread: please some new-fashioned good ol' XHTML would do nicely instead. Thanks.

Re:Why oh why PDF formatted docs?

[tokul]

The only way to get more information on this topic from the SuSE website is to download the PDF formatted docs.

Read the FAQ (google)

Find out more (google)

genderless?

[_defiant_]

No, no; not genderless. It is common gender, which is something different. If you wanted genderless, then go with "it". For english, we use the masculine as the common gender.

I hope theyre really tough

[mnmn]

I hope those certs dont just become anoter set of certs you can have after 3 weeks of exam crams. They should be able to seperate the boys from the men the way CCIE does.

I think we desperately need tough Linux certs to aim for, certs which will in time be respected enough to be of greater weight than the college degrees. Right now theres no standard way for a company to look for a highly skilled linux technician who can be creative, knowledgeable and original in solving problems. They just go for students from the best universities who have taken lots of java pascal and ada courses.

Re:Oh no.....

[QuasiCoLtd]

Actually, it should be:

Q. Why did the Certified Linux Eng. cross the road?
A. Someone told him the MCSE could do it better.

Re:ISC^2 and CISSP

[ubiquitin]

Closest thing to what you describe in I.T. that I've seen is the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium. Granted, it is security-focused, but when you define security as confidentiality, integrity and availability, then that pretty much covers everything that I.T. professionals do. It is worth checking out www.isc2.org to see what the future of such a governing body will look like.

LPI is recommended (but not required) by Novell

[evan_leibovitch]

In the web page describing its Linux certification, Novell says:

No previous Linux certification is required to become a Novell CLE, however a candidate will need to have the knowledge that is necessary to pass the Linux Professional Institute Certification Level 1 (LPIC 1).

True Value of Certification

[GarryOwen]

The true value of certification from an employer POV is that during the interview process it let's me know that I can skip the basic questions and go for more detailed questions off the bat. Also, it is good for certain vendor kick-backs (Compaq was great about this) and lets me know that the person is at least trying to improve themselves instead of sitting back on their laurels (if the cert is fairly recent). For all those who tell me that they don't need certs because they already have such great knowledge, I ask them why are they afraid of taking the relevant cert test? Most are relatively cheap ($100-$200 range), and if you pass most companies will reimburse you (FYI for vets out there, the GI Bill will now reimburse certs also).

Just call them what they are...

[spectecjr]

... Certified Linux Information Technologists.

MOD ABUSE

[Anonymous Coward]

This post should not have been modded down. The poster made an excellent point and simply told the truth.

Is the truth flamebait now?

...and in recent developments

[Anonymous Coward]

>I can access any part of it I need without gagging NDAs and/or paying for the privilege and finally --
>I am not tied to one megacorp with a penchant for monopolistic practises
>...running a business that I don't need to compound the issue by welcoming the vampire into my house.

Cringely recently had a column on M$'s plans for a future business model
wherein he makes the case that it's only going to get worse
for independent providers of tech support for M$ products (competition for BillG's minions).
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulp it20031120. html
He notes the recent attempts of The Borg to cripple Technet.
(Others have mentioned the difficulty of using it to solve non-trivial probs.)

gewg_

Re:Oh no.....

[Anonymous Coward]

grr....
they/them is plural.
him/her is singular.
get it right.

Re:Oh no.....

[shaitand]

Yes but the sentence in question had a singular subjet (the genderless singular linux geek crossing the road). It was geek, not geeks.