Slashdot Mirror


BSD Certifications Coming Soon

hugo_pt writes "The BSD Certification Group was formed in January, 2005 to create a BSD certification program that is recognized as the industry standard for administering BSD systems. The resulting certification process will provide a measure of excellence in both understanding and the ability to perform complex administrative tasks on BSD systems. 2005 will prove an exciting year as the BSD Certification Group develops certification level(s) and testing methodologies. Stay up-to-date regarding the latest developments by joining the public Mailing List. This initiative will prove very important for BSD administrators, as right now, companies don't have any way of knowning if a person is an experienced BSD administrator."

63 comments

  1. More info... by Homology · · Score: 3, Informative

    in the thread. Several of the comments there are responses from the BSD certification people.

  2. companies dont have any way of knowing... by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1
    as right now, companies don't have any way of knowning if a person is an experienced BSD administrator."
    please. as though a piece of paper is going to tell them that. I can see it now: I go up against... oh, say, Jordan Hubbard ... for a gig. He doesn't have one of the certificates... do you think my having one will make them choose me over him?
    1. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not that i'm slamming this effort, just the poster's expectation that a piece of paper will magically save companies from 'having no way of knowing'.

      the thing is, if a company is using *bsd, they're already somewhat cluefull.

      The main benefit i expect from this is that it'll lend legitimacy to the BSDs in the mind of the clueless suits of the world.

    2. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The scary part is alot of companys do reguire a stupid bit of paper to say "Blah can do blah".'Whilst it wont help you against someone with name recognition ,where it may help is in letting the company choose you over say johnathn Doe , Plus never forget that this can be a good starting point for people new to the industry or letting some windows admins in a small firm get the certs and persuade the boss to switch over

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    3. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 2

      The scary part is alot of companys do reguire a stupid bit of paper to say "Blah can do blah"


      I totally agree. Which is why i went out and got a LPI cert. I guess i'm just frustrated by how ignorant most IT managers are. maybe i shouldn't take it out on the poster :)
    4. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Hee , Several places offer nice unix admisitration certificates , and we all should have atleast one to prove our worth to the PHBs ;) , The problem comes in when you have about 50 diffrent certs for each flavour of unix .
      The most important certs should build up the core skills requierd to administer a generic unix server( or anything really )the others should basicaly be taught as small moduals , when you know how to properly administer one system then switching to another is not hard , ofcourse making the PHBs see that is nei on impossible.
      I hope the BSD course works like this as otherwise we have to sit through hours of writting perl scripts and using CSH along with the usefull things like the BSD filesystem , and how BSD handels devices etc(/etc boomtish).

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      please. as though a piece of paper is going to tell them that.

      It might be of more value to actually get some attention from employment agencies.

      I have had some cool interviews where I was quized by some real propellor-heads with pages of scenarios with questions. Have them admit to me that I almost did not even get an interview because I had NO certs, but they were interested in some old obscure system experience on my resume. Then at the end of the interview be told that I raised interesting points on almost every question which nobody else had and that I was the only person to answer all the questions to their satisfaction.

      I think slowly companies are noticing that many certifications are of little to no value to them. The certs are only good if you want to be assured of getting an interview with a company with a poor IT team and management or otherwise get past employment agencies.

      Well planned interviews, conducted by people who know their stuff and can see bullshit a mile away, are much more valuable than some paid for endorsement from a money hungry company which just wants to bolster their support base and turn it around from an expense to a money making machine.

    6. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by compass46 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Here are the most useful commands when using csh as a regular user...

      OpenBSD:
      % chsh -s /bin/sh

      FreeBSD:
      % su
      # pkg_add -r pdksh
      # logout
      % chsh -s /usr/local/bin/ksh

      As for root, I leave that as csh on my *BSD boxes because the thought of having to use csh forces me to write sudo permissions for anything I need to do regularly.

    7. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelt zsh.

    8. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... making the PHBs see that is nei on impossible.

      Please don't use words you can't spell. It hurts my eyes.

      ps: it's "nigh".
      pps: it'd have been easier to say "making the PHBs see that is impossible"

    9. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by compass46 · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, OpenBSD just switched root's shell to ksh for 3.8.

      http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=200 50328171714

    10. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Slightly off-topic, but how worthwhile do you feel LPIC is? I've been kicking around getting a piece of paper of my own, and not sure if I should go the RHCE or LPIC route. RHCE has wider recognition, but LPIC covers non-RH materials, so I'm not sure which route to go, at least to start.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please dont troll , it really is very poor form.
      Its a pun , see monthy python , I would say it went over your head but i think i May have mistyped it .
      Your perfectily welcome to go after my other many spelling errors i left in this posts fro you

    12. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled misspelled. And zsh sucks nuts.

    13. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, OS X's spell checker didn't let me know I had misspelled it. :(

    14. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      KSH is my shell of choice , that or BASH . Though i have used KSH for far longer so i tend to install it on everything i can.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    15. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Brandybuck · · Score: 0

      Certification are like university degrees. They demonstrate you've put up with the bullshit long enough to accomplish something.

      Why should I hire a professinal admin who never took the time to get a certification? Think about it. If someone comes to me with the claim that they've been administering Solaris systems for the past twenty years, but never bothered to get a SCSA at any time during that period, I'm going to be very suspicious of them. The only thing a lack of certification does is to certify lazyness.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    16. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only thing a lack of certification does
      > is to certify lazyness.

      Nah .. I'll disagree with this.. If someone was a solaris admin for the past twenty years perhaps they had no reason to get a certification. I don't have certs in many areas where I have worked for years simply because I never had a need to get a cert.. If I find myself needing a job, the first thing I'll do is update my resume and blast it to employers -- not get a cert.

      Why? I'd hope that experience will mean SOMETHING to the prospective employer.

      I don't think this means I am lazy -- it just means I never had a need to get a cert. If I need to get a cert to get a job or find I am at a disadvantage by not having a cert -- sure, I'll go ahead and get one .. but if I don't have to, then why would I want to waste the time and money?

    17. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by R.Caley · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They demonstrate you've put up with the bullshit long enough to accomplish something.

      I don't want to hire anyone who would put up with bullshit.

      Why should I hire a professinal admin who never took the time to get a certification?

      Perhaps he was doing his job while the dilettantes were off playing paper-chase. Every hour spent chasing paper is one not spent learning something new, or developing new skills.

      To invert your question, why should I hire someone who couldn't think of anything better to do with their time and money (or that of a previous employer) than getting a piece of paper to say what should be said more thoroughly and more convincingly by their references?

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    18. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't want to hire anyone who would put up with bullshit.

      In all likelihood your business is drowning in bullshit. You will need someone who can operate in that environment.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    19. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      You will need someone who can operate in that environment.

      Bulshit is, unfortunatly, something those of us who run things have to deal with. If I were hireing an administrator, I would want someone who could deal with bullshit. If I was hireing someone to actually do productive work, I'd want someone who would recognise and report bullshit.

      I can see no use for someone who would put up with bullshit. That would just breed even more bullshit.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    20. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, that's probably because 'misspelt' isn't a misspelling at all! English is full of similar examples, e.g. burnt/burned, spilt/spilled, smelt/smelled, etc. All are correct, and only the ignorant think their preferred choice amongst the valid spellings is the only correct one.

    21. Re:companies dont have any way of knowing... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      They demonstrate you've put up with the bullshit long enough to accomplish something.

      I don't want to hire anyone who would put up with bullshit.


      So you're saying you don't want competent support technicians? Putting up with bullshit is ALL we do.

      Sure this is more tp for the bunghole cert whores. And sure this is more boob bait for suited bubbas. However, this is the way things are all over in multiple sectors and you just do it. I pay as little attention to RHCE as MCSE these days and SBCA in satellite is a joke too as are so many other efficiency standard gymnastics awards from the ISO in manufacturing.

      But the people who make decisions in industry need quick eye-catching summations and people need things to put on their walls so...

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  3. BSD or GPL by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    Which license will the study material be release under?

  4. Where are the jokes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    As a long-time FreeBSD user, I have to insist on my daily dose of "BSD is dead"-jokes here. Come on, people! How about...

    News: BSD is now certified dead.

  5. Past experience is no indication of by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    ...future performance.

    This initiative will prove very important for BSD administrators, as right now, companies don't have any way of knowning [sic] if a person is an experienced BSD administrator."

    So, how does one get set up to give the classes to teach the young pups how to ace this "test"? There is certainly money to be made by promoting the merits of having certified staff members to clueless companies and equally-clueless techs signing up in droves to "prove" themselves.

    I say, certification for all!!!!

    Now, please turn to page 5 of the required blue handbook (only $79.99) and page 45 of the required red workbook ($150, no returns), and we'll begin... *cackle*

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Past experience is no indication of by archen · · Score: 1

      So, how does one get set up to give the classes to teach the young pups how to ace this "test"?

      Hmm... set up a class where you continually berate people to RTFM? I'd think that would be the ultimate BSD course!

    2. Re:Past experience is no indication of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When we think about FreeBSD, we can't help but be
      reminded of DeForest Kelley's prescient observation:
      It's dead, Jim.
    3. Re:Past experience is no indication of by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's Slackware. ;)

      Disclaimer to would be flamebait-mods: My *Nixes of choice are FreeBSD and Slackware.

  6. That coveted BSD cert... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ah yes... That coveted BSD cert. I've been seeing the terminology come up in headhunter ads and "career opportunity" listings for some time, but never knew where to get one... Good show.

    On a more serious note, when Linux was the obvious choice, but issues of security and stability where deciding factors, I've always recommended BSD (yes, I know BSD is not Linux, thank you).

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:That coveted BSD cert... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      when Linux was the obvious choice, but issues of security and stability where deciding factors, I've always recommended BSD

      I'm intrigued. When are security and stability ever not deciding factors?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:That coveted BSD cert... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Or when compatibility is an issue. I've yet to see anyone implement Coldfusion on a FreeBSD server with any sort of acceptable degree of stability.

      And no, linux binary compatibilty does not work with ColdFusion.

      If there was Coldfusion support on FreeBSD, I'd not need Linux in my server world.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  7. The To-be-forgotten OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I
    I heard a small sad sound,
    And stood awhile among the tombs around:
    "Wherefore, *BSDs," said I, "are you distrest,
    Now, screened from life's unrest?"

    II
    --"O not at being here;
    But that our future second death is near;
    When, with the living, memory of us numbs,
    And blank oblivion comes!

    III
    "These, our UNIX ancestry,
    Lie here embraced by deeper death than we;
    Nor thread nor kernel can you descry
    With keenest backward eye.

    IV
    "They count as quite forgot;
    They are as systems who've existed not;
    Theirs is a loss past loss of fitful breath;
    It is the second death.

    V
    "We here, as yet, each day
    Are blest with dear recall; as yet, can say
    We hold in some soul loved continuance
    Of shape and voice and glance.

    VI
    "But what has been will be --
    First memory, then oblivion's swallowing sea;
    Like Mac and Amiga, shall we merge into those
    Whose story no one knows.

    VII
    "For which of us could hope
    To show in life that world-awakening scope
    Granted the few whose memory none lets die,
    But all men magnify?

    VIII
    "We were but Fortune's sport;
    Things true, things lovely, things of good report
    We neither shunned nor sought ... We see our bourne,
    And seeing it we mourn."

  8. Her are some... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a matter of degrees. If, for example, you have a laboratory using Linux boxes for custom programs that do functionality related to special experiments or programs, "security" is not really an issue, most of these boxes are not on "The Net". Likewise, equipment on the floor of the production facility are not generally susceptible to HACKERS. Here is a mistake that many here at Slashdot make: All servers and computers are "on the net" or somehow related to net functionality. Not so.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Her are some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security is not really an issue in a laboratory? That's funny, becuase every lab I've ever worked in has taken security pretty seriously. Here is a mistake that Saeed al-Sahaf makes: You only have to worry about computer security if you are "on the net". Not so.

    2. Re:Her are some... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      If you work in a lab that has to worry about the security on their computers that are running projects, you have the wrong people working for/with you (but probably for, since you are obviously and idiot who does not work "with" other people). Have a clue, and get a life. Not everyone in this world are hackers looking for a way to exploit a system.

      I seriously do not think you could make it past the lobby of the lab I work in, and our security is slack, we just don't let loser thieving hacker "doods" in the building.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:Her are some... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      "Not everyone in this world are hackers looking for a way to exploit a system."

      No, but the most likely source of people who ARE looking for ways to exploit a system are employees of the company that owns the system.

      Your company is much more likely to be exploited by an insider with physical access than to be sucessfully attacked from the internet by someone else.

      See, it's the people who work there who actually care about what your systems are supposed to be doing. That gives them motivation for doing things with them that they aren't supposed to. The vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't even know your systems exist, let alone care what they are doing.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  9. Requiem for the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    // Please *don't* mod this up. It has already been done! Thx

    ... facts are facts. ;)

    FreeBSD:
    FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
    "FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
    Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
    "[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
    W hat's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
    "FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

    NetBSD:
    NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
    NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
    NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

    OpenBSD:
    OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
    Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
    OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

    *BSD in general:
    Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
    "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
    BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
    "The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
    ..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

    --
    Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

  10. UNIX Certs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, another OS has a certification? Does this mean paying a buttload of money just to get a piece of paper saying you're good at reading a book that tells you how to pass the certification? What a joke. You're not going to find real UNIX admins giving a *$&! about certifications. You'll find them sitting in the back room of a corporation writing shell scripts and working or playing with their servers. ...possibly rocking back and forth saying pebkac over and over due to the outstanding number of support emails they get from the front office...

    I for one consider this a marvelous life.

  11. It makes no difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both certs exist solely to "prove" you know linux to HR people with no clue, and no way to tell completant applicants from morons. Get whichever you find easier/cheaper/more convenient (depending on which matters more to you). Because for the people hiring you, they are the same thing.

  12. scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, the certification is so the certifiers can make money off the masses.

  13. Elegy for *BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elegy For *BSD


    I am a *BSD user
    and I try hard to be brave
    That is a tall order
    *BSD's foot is in the grave.

    I tap at my toy keyboard
    and whistle a happy tune
    but keeping happy's so hard,
    *BSD died so soon.

    Each day I wake and softly sob
    Nightfall finds me crying
    Not only am I a zit faced slob
    but *BSD is dying.

  14. New BSD certifcation exam questions by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Given what people usually think of certification programs, here's what we might see as some questions on the certification exam:

    1. How do you install a new software package?

    A. make port
    B. make sherry
    C. make install clean
    D. make love ^war

    2. BSD stands for:

    A. Bill Gates Steals our Dollars
    B. Bitchin' System, Dude!
    C. Berkeley Software Distribution
    D. Berkeley people Smoke a lot of Dope

    3. Which version of BSD is the best and why?

    A. FreeBSD - because PHBs like the word "free".
    B. OpenBSD - because the average user thinks clicking on free porn links in emails from Nigeria is safe.
    C. NetBSD - because running it on grandpa's pacemaker gives new meaning to the kill command.
    D. Dragonfly - because it sounds like a cool SciFi series.
    E. Any of the above as long as it makes a Linux advocate feel insecure and act petty.

    --
    -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    1. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Snip/]
      D. Dragonfly - because it sounds like a cool SciFi series.
      [/Snip]

      Little Nit to pick...It's DragonFly not Dragonfly.

      Thanks and have a good day!

    2. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      1. How do you install a new software package?

      E. None of the above

      The correct way to install a software package is "make install && make clean".

      This has been a public service announcement from your local humourless slashdot poster.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by setagllib · · Score: 1

      'make install clean' does the same thing but without re-forking and with any caches make could have had (which most cleans won't need, admittedly). Learning about make's behavior is highly recommended: don't be like the 90% of stupid guides and tutorials I've seen which insist on using && to do the same thing with more overhead and typing.

      An extra bonus is that arguments persist for all arguments to a make, for instance:
      make -j3 -DDEBUG depend all install clean (all targets get -j3 and -DDEBUG)
      make -j3 -DDEBUG depend && make all (and so on - only first target gets those flags, and repeating them all is highly impractical).

      This has been a public service announcement by someone with a clue.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    4. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by kbw · · Score: 1

      This is getting boring.

      I also have a clue.

    5. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots! To install a package, you use pkg_add. To install a PORT , you use make.

    6. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      To install both you use portinstall and either specify which you want on the command line or let it pick which is the latest for you.

      (Yes, portinstall is really the same as portupgrade with slightly different defaults, but let's not get too involved here ...)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:New BSD certifcation exam questions by CowbertPrime · · Score: 1

      I am still uncomfortable using portupgrade (except for unwieldy things like gnome) since I like to minimize things going on behind my back (yes even with extra verbosity). I still prefer manually backing up the +REQUIRED_BYs, pkg_delete -F all dependancies, pkg_delete portname, make install portname, then updating +REQUIRED_BYs. The deps for a given port is visually verified before doing the update by hand.

  15. Won't be useful here in Germany by itedo · · Score: 1

    I mean it's nice, but it's also kinda useless -- especially if you are unemployed. Neither can 50% of German PC "Magazines" spell the word BSD[1] nor does anybody here care about Yet Another nameless Certification.

    It should make a name for oneself first - obtaining acceptance in the industry should be a primary goal of this new Certification Group.

    [1] http://www.bsdforen.de/attachment.php?attachmentid =855

  16. Same old Linux FUD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same old GNU/Linux FUD, that has been disproved countless times..
    In short: the MIT research is *11 years old*, and that Rice study on the TCP/IP stack uses FreeBSD *2.2.6*.

  17. Certifications are necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't understand why so many people are against BSD Certifications. Particular fear of something? If you are not found of it, simply don't atend it.

    Well, I think that's extremely important for BSD and its future worlwide standard BSD certifications. It's the best way of getting into the corporate world. BSD will be known as an alternate and responsible by big and small corporations and governments will be aware of it.

    It's not simply "a paper to check out what you know". It's a way of knowing that you are able, by universal standards, to act responsibly with BSD. It's a clear way of being represented and, socially speaking, it's a way of getting an institucional presence in the business scenario.

    Well... I hope all this odds cease now.

  18. One better by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

    for an additional $5 and half an hour of training, in addition to BSD upkeep you can become a certified mortician as well!!

  19. A nice little earner by kbw · · Score: 1

    When Microsoft started their certification program some years ago, I saw it as an attempt to leverage more money from the Windows platform. Especially when you see the questions relating to specific dialog boxes on specific versions of the platform.

    However, ISO 9002 compliant companies need to document and observe various procedures. And when it comes to hiring, it's easier to list a bunch of certificates required rather than rely on experienced opinion. The hiring procedures become more distant from the acutal job as the company becomes larger.

    So Microsoft certification has become successful. A rather clever idea, if what you want to do is increase your revenues. It's spawned a whole new industry in books, tuturials, exams, fees and HR personel who check more boxes.

    RedHat's had certification for years too. But they're expected to. They're selling Linux to organisations who expect to spend money on this sort of thing, who expect a set of expensive services, not just a kernel with GNU tools.

    And so it seems that BSD certification is an attempt to legitimise BSD to these big spenders, and make all us BSD users/developers/administrators feel we ought to pay too.

    If I am to pay, who do I pay bsdcertification.org or bsdcertification.com?

    Neither I think.

    1. Re:A nice little earner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would take a minute to read the mailing list you would see that this isn't about money.

      While you pay a huge amount of money to take a MCSE or any other commercial OS certification you will only pay for the bsdcertification team expenses on giving you a BSD certification. (they spend money too, remember?)

      I really expect it to be a really low price and a good certification.

  20. Why the hostility? by twigles · · Score: 1

    Everyone hates certs in this crowd. Somehow they make you less hardcore. Whatever. Certs are good for a couple reasons:

    1. They give someone focus. Some people can learn on a job, others are very disciplined. Personally I drift around wondering what to study next, so even if I don't want a cert (I only have 1 right now) I will pick up that cert's book and work through it knowing I might take the test sometime in the next year or two.

    2. They make you look good to non-geeks. You know, the ones doing the hiring. The ones who list MCSE and CCIE as basically equivalent.

    3. They get the technology out there. As a FBSD user I want to see the certification books at Costco. I don't believe FBSD is a geek-only endeavor, and making it accessible to normal people doesn't make it worse.

    4. Finally, certs give you some assurance that the person can do *something*. What that something is depends on the test, but at least you know they can, for example, install RH/Apache, set up AD, manipulate database permissions, etc.. From there you have to figure it out yourself but at least you have a little bit of help out of the gate.