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."
in the thread. Several of the comments there are responses from the BSD certification people.
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.
Sitting Walrus Blog
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
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
Sitting Walrus Blog
News: BSD is now certified dead.
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
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
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
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
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!