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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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

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

[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

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

[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.

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.

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!

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[_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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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?

Good morning

[haraldm]

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

This is not new

[voideng]

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.