Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat's Certification Program Questioned
unitron writes
"Nobody loves you when you're not down and out,
apparently. A not overly long article
in the business section of today's (4/16) News and
Observer talks about how Red Hat's certification program
is getting them compared (unfavorably) to Microsoft,
mentions the fears of some that certification efforts
will become fragmented and also discuses the Linux
Professional Institute certification program plans. "
Is this in the same vein as the "they say they will support the standard when it comes out, but what if they don't?" article a few weeks back?
(At least) one of RH's own people agrees that having 10 differents certs is the wrong way to go. If we're going to win this war, we've got to stand unified. If we are busy fighting amongst ourselves, we won't get taken seriously.
There is nothing wrong with RH doing their own cert when no others exist. For that matter, it may make a good model for a general Linux cert to be based on (why "reinvent the wheel"?)
This is it! They've struck their blow! They must now be annihilated to forestall any further ablation of the high standards of our community! Our tribe is endangered and we must lash out in blind, mindless vengeance and fury at these loathome squidlike beings from the lightless depths of the netherworld!
They come from the Hollow Earth! They must be destroyed!
As in, "Don't eat the . .
:)
Digital Metrics has set up an on-line distro-neutral testing program.
http://www.digitalmetrics.com
It looks to be a fairly comprehensive test as well. A little over 10% pass rate so far.
for $15.00, it's at least a good warm up exercise for RHCE or whatever else comes along.
> With Applixware (non-GPL), the RedBaron WWW browser (non-GPL and dead because of it), and Metro-X (non-GPL and not that much better than XFree).
None of those were released by RedHat -- they were just distributed by them. Both Applixware ans Metro-X are produced by companies other than RedHat, while RedBaron was an OEMed version of some browser (I can't remember which). You might be better off to nail them for their version of Motif, although it is also primarily another companies product. So far, everything that RedHat has produced in-house has been GPLed.
Why don't RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera talk to each other and start a UNIFIED Linux certification program? This is just a thought. This would clear many doubts about fragmentation of Linux and the "RedHat is THE Linux" attitude of RedHat (or at least a public perception of such.)
Certification can lead to the CPA Syndrome: no matter what I know or how much experience I may have as an accountant (I am not an accountant BTW) I can't work on X Project without a CPA designation. Or practice law without passing the appropriate tests. This leads to an elite within the profession that then determines who the new members will be. Vicious circle then appears.
Good comments.
Ok, this is the last time I'm going to explain this: A linux distro CAN NOT become another Microsoft! Microsoft's ability to charge monopoly rents is based on difficulty and cost of switching to another product. Any Red Hat customer can freely and easily switch to another source for it's CDs and support, thus if it fails to act in the best interest of it's customers, it stands to lose them all very quickly. Microsoft's profitability is based on product lock-in, which is something that simply does not exist for open source software. Red Hat's profitability is based on them being in the right place at the right time to become the clearinghouse for enterprise support of Linux; this is a situation which can very quickly change. I'm sure even Red Hat knows that it is selling a commodity product, as such, it simply cannot play the kinds of games with it's OEMs and customers that M$ has.
The bigger Red Hat gets, the more credibility Linux has to corporate customers. A viable alternative to M$ bloatware means that everybody wins, because it forces M$ to compete by actually meeting their customer's needs, rather than screwing them out of every possible dollar simply because the costs of switching are prohibitive.
Microsoft was an economic anomaly that can only occur in a period of sweeping technological change (e.g. Standard Oil and RCA). In a few years, it won't be possible for anybody to become another Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft won't even be a Microsoft any more; it will be more like an RCA, or even an IBM.
Great idea, except that Red Hat is probably the only company cash-rich enough right now to do the work required to set up a certification program.
Of course it can, you're just a dumbass.
Let's see MCSE for NT4.0, NT5.0, +I, and a plethora of other silly things.. MS will have distro specific certifications because rolling the NT5.0 and 4.0 together would cost them money in "free" revinue! (NT5.0 is absolutely no different than 4.0 and anyone that says so is an idiot)
Linux will have distro specific certs, RH is a point and mush distro, while slackware requires knowlege of ifconfig,route, and other networking utilities.
I myself lived in the shadows. I was 5/6 of the way towards
my MCSE when I'd installed Linux for the first time. I had been
for quite some time nauseated with the prospect of eventually
renewing my certification and Linux freed me from these
problems. I now know more about systems admin then
I ever could have dreamt knowing. And my employers
know my level as well.
RedHat's cert sounds fine (RPMs are worth knowing no
matter what distro you're working with) but I'm curious if
anybody knows how often renewal for that must take
place.
Hmmm...
.... the list goes on, AND it's still GPL. If you don't like it, don't buy it, get another distribution. It's not like Redhat owns the licence to linux and can screw you blind if you don't agree to their OEM licence terms...
Applixware, not their's, they just distributed it, and if something can interpret the word docs at a cheaper cost than office, I'll pay for it.
Metro-X, also not theirs, but at the time, the only distribution of X that supported my Matrox Mil2. XFree now has a much wider range of support, but back then, it was a necessity. Besides, they weren't charging any more for it, their licence with Metro had it so they could only distribute OEM.
Redhat have done a lot to bring linux into the limelight, but, and I mean a big BUT, Linux is still linux, be it Redhat, Slackware, Caldera, SUSE,
As long as Redhat are attracting good press about Linux, who cares. When my boss says "what's this I hear about Redhat Linux", it gives me the opportunity to a) educate him that Linux is Linux, that b) inform him distribution XXX will do the same job, and c) allow me to get more of the boxes into the company.
What this sounds more like to me, is another case of the "linux wars", that is only going to do us harm. Let Redhat keep pushing forward and making life easier for us Linux people and harder forthe MS people. Good on them.
I wouldn't be comparing Free or GPL with Public, nor would I be making comparisons to social security or highways.
In our country, the free benefits of social security come to those that get it at the cost of the rest of us that work. It's called taxes. Try getting a job and you might see what I mean.
As for the highways, well, they are funded again by those naughty little taxes, or by tolls.
So, the term "public" implies a cost when you refer it to things like highways and social security. Find a better term.
Please learn how to politely communicate your point before attempting to do so....
read the header
I don't see redhat releasing non-OpenSource software any time soon...nor ever for that matter
showing as how they donate money to linux projects
I don't see why they would stop and release non-opensource...that would basically destroy them
it's against the very nature of linux
that's just being ignorant and ego-happy
I run slackware too, but I run it because I like it
I have nothing against redhat, and I think it is immature for anyone to put redhat down.
RedHat sponsors Gnome, Freshmeat, Enlightenment, etc...
if it wasn't for RedHat linux would stand a much lower chance of actually surviving
more people buy redhat than just about any other distro
why? because it's easy to use for the beginners, companies, etc
if all there was was slackware, then companies would never switch
and what's so great about slackware anyways? Stampede is faster than Slackware, Redhat/Caldera/SuSE all give out quite a bit of extra software that the user can install if he/she wants to.
If your arguement is about the price RedHat charges for their distro...go to the stores - look it up, it costs $35 or so...that's the same price Slackware charges...
and I don't hear about Slackware donating money to projects
I think bashing redhat is just an ego thing
makes people feel that they are more "elite" than redhat users
and to me that's pretty sad
kewl...
That can be only one of three people... AN, JM or RJ
....My thoughts exactly.
BTW they said 2 weeks right?
Dave
Why are certifications needed, anyhow? Once upon a time when you were getting a job, someone interviewed you and figured out if you were any good. We get loads of people at work with Master's degrees, MSCEs, and lord knows what else. What these people all have in common is that very few of them are good at what they do.
:). I don't know about you guys, but I won't even work anywhere that requires me to take a written test. Sorry, I did that in college. I didn't waste 5 years of my life on an electrical engineering degree to have to prove I know what inheritance means!
Have you ever taken a certification course? You don't get into any kinda specifics. Most of the "training" courses I've seen teach you were the buttons are and not much else.
Anyone who knows jack about Linux should be able to instincitively tell someone who knows that they're talking about from someone that has their head up their ass.
This is the approach we use in my workplace; We just get the house expert to sit down with you and determine how good you are. No written test required
A nerd is one who enjoys/is good with computers/technology/science. A geek is they guy in circuses who bites the heads off chickens.
Oddly enough, I use fdisk to partition all of my new installs under RedHat, and immediately compile my own kernel... It appears that you are not doing something right, or you have not read the manual.
----------------
version conflict
X X
@
As a person who just returned from RedHat, after completing the RHCE course, I think I have to put forth my opinion to those who are making theirs known here.
The RHCE training course is well-designed, well-rounded and complete with a mildly-difficult lab exam. The RedHat employees are friendly and helpful, the amenities are gracious and complete. Over all, the experience was great.
The concerns that I and others in my class had regarding course material (ambiguous questions and the occasional too easy lab) were listened to by the Training Coordinator (Peter Childers, a very intelligent and good person) personally, and all concerns were met with questions that showed intent to change the course material to the better. The course is in a state of continual improvement, and each class will be better than the last. Soon, there may be divergent levels of difficulty to accomodate the wide spectrum of Linux users. This is a good thing.
To those who believe that the RHCE is a bad thing, take the course and decide unbiasedly. You cannot shout from the rooftops to the Linux community (slashdot) about something that you have no credible knowledge of. Go visit RedHat and talk to the people there. It will surprise you to find how much work puts into the Linux community, that is outside the scope of RedHat. They evidently have their heads screwed on straight, they are out to make a profit (what company is not?) and are doing it the right way.
In conclusion, I recommend that people of all skill levels go and take the RHCE course. If you are a knowledgeable user, the class will teach you quite a bit. If you are a very well versed Linux developer, you might not learn quite as much, but it will be a good experience, and it will confirm your knowledge, not to mention give you "RHCE" after your name.
--anxiously awaiting my cert in the mail
----------------
version conflict
X X
@
The problem with "public software" is that it might be confused with stuff in the "public domain," that is, not copyrighted. Public domain is the total extreme: use it any way you which, you don't have to give any credit to anyone, and you can licence it any way you want. The GPL, on the other hand, restricts the licencee (when compared to BSD-type or public domain) in return for increased freedom of the masses.
I tend to call it "Free Software," always capitalised as if it were something special. And I would never use "Free" by itself, because it's way too ambigious. Examples:
"Is this Free Software? Cool."
"Check out this new Free Software Web browser!"
If you like to add Latin words in your everyday speech, you could always say "Software Libre" or simply "libre."
"Is this Software Libre? Cool."
"Check out this new Software Libre Web browser!"
"I'm working on modifying this libre application."
That just sounds a little weird.
See, in French, they have no problem with the confusion. Free is either "gratuit" or "libre," with libre meaning free as in free speech.
"Regardez ce logiciel libre que j'ai obtenu, Pierre!"
or
"Pierre, ces pingouins offrent la biere gratuite!"
It's Caldera we should worry about.
It's meant to attract all those RedHat haters that think they are worse than MS. Blah, blah, blah. Fact is, it'll be pretty on a resume, and I've seen several posts on Monster and the like that say they want a RedHat certified person. It at least shows you're competent. If you can pass it, I'm sure you could manage your way around Debian, et al.
Face it, hiring managers need a way to ensure that you really know your stuff. All too often I've seen them hire dolts that don't know what they're doing. Having the RHCE shows you are pretty competent (unlike a MCSE).
And as for MCSEs, no they don't last forever. When MS cancels a certain test, you have like a year to take a new one to replace it, or else you're out (as your NT 3.51 example). You have to keep up with their latest/greatest programs.
I think it'd be tough to have general certifications until distros unify things like the file system organization. But taking the RHCE does show you're at least not a total nitwit. You should be able to manage around Debian, Slackware, etc after passing it.
Read up on RedHat's Certification program. It's not a Linux for Beginner's class. It's for people who know Linux well (there's a lengthy list of prerequisites). For those of us with knowledge, and want something pretty on resumes for those PHB's we're trying to please to get hired or a raise. So, passing the test shows you're fairly competent, and should be able to manage any distribution, not just RH.
Of course, by MS releasing new versions of everything every 2 years, not only do they get money from the users buying the products, but then they also get to charge for training and certification for that new program.
Evil, pure and simple.
So spread the word that the RH test is a general Linux test sponsored by RedHat. The skills you need to go through all those prerequisites and the test outlines on RH's web pages most certainly pertain to any distribution, setting up NFS, firewalls, etc.
:)).
The differences between distributions is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. I realize PHBs may not know that, so that's where we come in to say, "Hey! Linux is Linux, bub" (or something close to that
All these in-house fighting between which distribution is evil incarnate and which is our savior, which company should have a certification test, or which desktop environment should be nuked off the planet all make it tough for an advocate to spread the good word of Linux. Let's face it, RedHat has money, and we can either bitch and moan, or use it to help everybody whether it's by hiring kernel/GNOME programmers or establishing tests to appease PHBs. RedHat isn't MS, we can voice our opinions to them with a decent chance of it being heard. They sure as hell don't want to be knocked off the market, so they'll do plenty to help Linux and OSS in general.
The whole business of certification is controversial. It is doubtful to some if certification means anything, regardless of who provides the certification. Does anyone think that CmdrTaco can't administer a Linux box? (I think that he is/was the primary administrator of /.) Personally, I don't like the practice of certification. It lets HR people be more lazy in hiring people, and it may make it more difficult for them to fire people ("We can't fire him, because he's our only CNE/MSCE/...").
The certification debate is similar to the "Do geeks need to go to college?" debate. I actually think that they do need to, just for learning the basics which one is less likely to learn on ones own. In that way, going through a certification course may be useful for learning the basics. I'll repeat, though, that I don't think that it should have a lot of effect on the perceived value of a new employee. AFAIK, MSCE certification doesn't expire, meaning that someone who received it on NT 3.51 would have the same certification as someone who received it on NT 4.0. I'm not an expert on either of these systems, but I know that they are significantly different, and I wouldn't immediately say that a person fluent with 3.51 would be able to be fluent with 4.0.
Enough rambling. I hope I've made my point.
Posted by sach:
That exactly right. I think that they learned their lesson right around when they released 5.0
I don't really see any reason to knock redhat anyway: They have a really nice distribution, they support countless open source efforts and they are trying to get linux onto the desktop. Since when did making things easier for the end user become the definition of monopolistic motives anyway?
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
I have no problems with the redhat certification program. But redhat ought to fix their fucking installation program. It is absurdly inflexible. For instance, you "have" to use that damned DiskDruid program to allocate partitions- that stupid thing by default makes everything an extended partition, guaranteed to be incompatible with some linux programs. It also forces you to use their precompiled kernel. This _really_ sucks. One time I needed a custom SCSI driver just to install stuff to a hard disk, but it wasn't available for the kernel version redhat was shipping.... ack
Anyways, redhat seems fine other than their damned installation program.
As long as the RH certification applies to other distros, what's the big deal? What I'd like to see - for those of us who don't have the buckolas and can't get the company to pay for the air travel, per diem and the ceritication/testing costs - would be some sort of on-line testing from a reputable Linux company. There's still a lot of resistance to the ROI for the "standard" testing model for Linux heads in some - read my - companies. I think, though, that a solid test for setting up and admining a Linux box/boxes would be a big plus for my resume. I mean I've done this stuff - nntp, qmail, dns, networking, users, etc.But a well-backed certificate would be good too. Also, there are some things I won't get to do for real, like samba, that a testing situation would force me into doing - I'm lazy - in order to pass the test on it.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
With Applixware (non-GPL), the RedBaron WWW browser (non-GPL and dead because of it), and Metro-X (non-GPL and not that much better than XFree).
You are talking future tense, and I maintain that RedHat has already crossed this line, of releasing other-than-public-software.
And they're contributing to GNOME for the hell of it and releasing the code under the (L)GPL as fits. You seem to forget that all the commercial distributers do similar things, just RedHat is the biggest one and the one most (currently) dedicated towards doing things the (L)GPLed way.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
It doesn't matter that the product is free when 90% of the people are convinced they need to have the name of one company on it.
Why do you think the Coca-Cola company is as big as it is? Everyone can mix a similar drink!
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/
I can tell you - without identifying any sources - that it's not the only cash-rich Linux company. A much greater problem is speed of growth. Yesterday a 100-people company, next week 1000 people? Impossible, even if there'd be enough people to hire, which is not the case anyway.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/
I see two problems with a Red-Hat-Linux-specific certification:
1) Certification changes for the worse the way skills are evaluated.
In the absence of certification, employers have no way to evaluate prospective employees' skills except the hard way. This may amount to probation periods for new hires, practical demonstrations of skill (fix this busted server and we'll hire you), or simply bringing trusted technical employees into the interview process.
In the presence of certification, employers tend to evaluate skills the easy way -- on the basis of certifications. This leads them to undervalue an employee who lacks certifications, and to overvalue one who has them. Both are errors, potentially grievous ones. The former harms both employee and employer; the latter mostly harms the employer.
Well-marketed certifications give employers the impression that they can safely rely on the certification as a credential, whether or not it is actually worthwhile. This is the nature of marketing -- just as ubiquitous marketing is able to make an inferior product such as Windows NT into "the standard", it is able to make an inferior or useless certification into "a standard". Naturally, once it is established as a "standard", employees are virtually required to obtain it.
The hazard for the certifying authority is this: if a certification can be made into a de-facto "standard", then the employment market for the relevant skillset becomes recursively dependent on that certification, and the certifying authority gets to ride the gravy train, while dragging the employment market through the dirt -- harming both employer and employee in the long run. This is arguably what Microsoft has done with the MCSE.
While there may seem to be little risk of such a degradation in the Linux employment market at present, it is certainly a possibility in the long run. To prevent this, it is in everyone's interest that employers get used to evaluating skills the hard way, even if they use certifications as part of this process. My recommendation is to bring trusted technical staff into the process of evaluating prospective hires. Who is better to tell you whether the candidate is qualified?
2) A Red-Hat-specific certification encourages, even without malice, Red Hat dominance.
Though Red Hat may have exactly zero imperialist or Microsoft-like intentions, it remains the case that if employers start accepting a Red Hat certification as a "standard" certification for Linux, it may be expected that they will follow this up by preferring Red Hat over other distributions. This will encourage software producers to fixate on Red Hat Linux as a "standard", as I have discussed elsewhere.
Further, because Red-Hat-specific skills will be expected of most people seeking Linux-related employment, a person seeking to maintain or develop skills on other distributions will be at a disadvantage, time-wise, to one who focuses solely on Red Hat Linux.
Finally, market dominance is in the business interests of any corporation; that's just what corporations do. "Every frustum longs to be a cone, and every vector dreams of matrices"* -- and every corporation wants to boost its stock value, even those which aren't publicly traded (yet). A certification may, in time, become another tool of this process -- again, with no hostile or imperialist intent on the part of the people at Red Hat.
* Stanslaw Lem, Cyberiad.
I'm going to RedHat's Certification Program on July 12th.. I finished a big project and saved the company $1.5 mill... They asked what I wanted it return... I said Redhat Certification..
/etc/exports, can stuff like that...
I've looked over what they're going to teach.. Yes, some of it is Redhat only stuff... but most of it is general GNU Linux stuff like ifconfig, route,
It looks like a great program
Side note.. if anyone else is going July 12th-July 16th, Email me
ChiefArcher
> When we start seeing non-GPL software from Red Hat, then we start worrying.
:P
s/GPL/free/;
there are other free licenses out there, and more importantly, licenses out there that are more free than the GPL
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Instead of Red Hat Linux Certified, maybe they could call it Linux Certified by Red Hat. Other distros could follow the same format with the result being the emphasis on "Linux Certified," not the distro.
Red Hat - feel free to use this idea!
I may be mistaken, but I thought RH stopped distributing all of the above software precisely becuase none of it was free. Going to the redhat website, the only thing I can find for sale that is not free is their version of Motif, and standard motif distributions cannot be free.
Caldera is quoted on this topic(Doesn't Caldera also have a certification program?) in the article
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Did I detect a suggestion that people know what they're talking about before posting here?
You don't seriously expect something like that to catch on around here, do you?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You did follow your sig... you just chose the 'not at all' option :)
Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
Doesn't Caldera also have a certification program?
I like the phrase "liberated software". It is less ambiguous than "free software", and shorter than "free (think speech not beer) software". It has a connotation of freedom that "open source (tm) software" does not.
To grab my dictionary, "liberate" has three meanings:
1) To free, as from oppression, represssion, bondage, or foreign control.
2) (Chemistry) To release from combination.
3) (Slang) To obtain by looting; steal. In this sense, used ironically.
So, you could call GPLed software "liberated software" under meaning 1 -- and a warez d00d could call an illegal CD of MS Office "liberated software" under meaning 3. I'd argue that free speech/free beer is a lesser burden to explain to buisnessmen than free speech/stolen goods.
Another alternative, emancipated ("no longer subject to official authority or control") has a secondary definition as well ("no longer subscribing to accepted moral and social conventions"), with some connotations of libertinism (no, I do not mean libertarianism or liberalism). Could cause problems with buisnessmen -- and if you don't care about them, "free" is just as good.
Public software carries both connotations of the public domain and of government control.
"Free Source software" or some variant separates GPL/BSD/X/NPL from Microsoft Internet Explorer while keeping the word "free" around (which is lost in "open source") with the secondary connotation that *binaries* do not necessarily have to be free.
Frankly, I think Libre is the right word to use. It has the exact definition we want and isn't too difficult to understand (it even looks like the word "liberty"). Heck, English borrows from foreign languages (esp. French) for new words all the time anyway -- why not libre?
I started worrying then, a couple years back...
With Applixware (non-GPL), the RedBaron WWW browser (non-GPL and dead because of it), and
Metro-X (non-GPL and not that much better than XFree).
You are talking future tense, and I maintain that
RedHat has already crossed this line, of releasing
other-than-public-software.
I like that phrase. I'm gonna start saying "Public Software" whenever I'm tempted to say "free" or "GPL'd" or "Open Source".
Public Software. Wow. Like, no question about
who owns it. Like the highway. Or Social Security.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"Public software carries both connotations of the public domain and of government control."
Wow.
I see this as a failing of government, not
a problem with software or with language.
It's like the whole "hacker/cracker" problem.
I guess language evolves to the lowest common
denominator.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The neat difference is that this software doesn't belong to the government.
I was naievely going on the memory of "government
of the people"
I forgot that "security concerns" replaced "freedom" as the national ideal some time in 1972,
when the hippies were either all dead or too tired
of protesting.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
As long as there there are different colors of Linux floating around, there should be as many different certifications floating around. How can RedHat be expected to certify that someone is proficient with a product that they did not produce? Just becuase I might know a lot about Irix doesn't mean that I know squat about Solaris.
I hope that RedHat only claims to certify people in their usage of RedHat. If Slackware, Debian, SuSe, etc want to certify people in their ditributions, go ahead.
Also, I think that certification is a good thing. I might not validate someone's skill, but it at least gives company big wigs to look at and knod their head about.
--pc
Once again, the press fears the ominous spectre of another empire rising the ashes of a smoldering, outdated MS.
Once again, rampant paranoia and delusion reign supreme in the press. I for one, am not shocked.
What choices did Red Hat had for providing certification? With no community organizations doing anything until _very_ recently, Red Hat decided to start training people so that Linux could get in the workplace, on resumes, and gain some desparately needed corporate credibility.
They blazed their own trial in this matter because there was no path made yet. They certify Red Hat Linux because that's what they are experts in. If history serves true, Red Hat would happily sponsor the community certification movement mentioned-certification is certainly outside their business.
Once again, why should Red Hat be attacked for choosing to do something by themselves when no coherent community efforts were availiable in a usable state ( cf. LSB )
I forgot that "security concerns" replaced "freedom" as the national ideal some time in 1972
It's not "security concerns", it's "investor's rights". Have you looked at NAFTA or the Multilateral Agreement on Investment? These documents give corporations rights equivalent to nations. So public policy (i.e. social security, banning poisonous industrial chemicals, taxation) is being subordinated to the protection of investment.
And this is what "freedom" has meant to American public policy makers, more or less, since the days of Madison.
Jonathan
When we start seeing non-GPL software from Red Hat, then we start worrying.
All this paranoia about Red Hat is absurd.
First off, Red Hat is a tiny company. Anybody who compares Red Hat to Microsoft does not have a good grip on history. Microsoft from the day it was born was a mean, vicious company. As an example, in the TRS-80 days (yes, I am that old!) they offered a BASIC compiler and if you wrote applications with it you had to pay Microsoft a 9% royalty on your sales to license the runtime libraries! At the time, Microsoft was about the same size as Red Hat is today.
Red Hat by comparison has commited to only having free software in their distribution. They fund important work for the community like GNOME, Rasterman, and Alan Cox.
Second, what else could Red Hat certify? They only know Red Hat. What if you wanted a Red Hat centric certification? How else could you get it?
Lastly, there is nothing wrong with certification. A license to practice medicine is a certification, a college degree is a certification, a driver's license is a certification. The world is full of them. It doesn't mean everything, but it does mean something. If I see that you are certified, I know that you at least attended some classes. It doesn't mean that you know everything, but it does mean that you know something.
My computer, my way. Linux
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but that's so evil it's beautiful.
=moJ
- - - - - -
Member in Good Standing,
Actually that sounds like a very viable idea. Say PHB at MegaCorp X has decided to take the LinuxPlunge(tm) and move some servers from AIX/Solaris/NT/whatever to Linux. After the Distro of Choice(tm) has been selected the PHB could qualify prospective candidates for SysAdmin(etc) by their Distro specific Certification AND their General Linux Certification.
I mean there *are* certain things that are unique(dubious) to each Distro and PHBs (being the singular minded people they are) will look for something like this; however the General Linux Certification would ensure not only the PHBs but Real People(tm) that the candidate is of quality.
-vE ten.xeh@dloc
How about a generic LINUX certification with additional certifications in the different distro's?
The smaller folks make very small add-on tests which certify for their particular flavor.
This way, Cheap Linux won't have to make a full certification course just to certify people. They could re-use the generic certification, and give their own additional stamp.
It'll also fill more lines on the resume.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
And no matter how much I think I know about medicine, the AMA won't let me cut people up! It's an exaggeration, but there are still two sides to it.
I'd like to chat with you (or anyone else)a little about your training/exam. I'm scheduled to attend the June 28 session. Please email me.
-Kara Pritchard
Kara@luci.org
I like the phrase "liberated software". It is less ambiguous than "free software", and shorter than "free (think speech not beer) software". It has a connotation of freedom that "open source (tm) software" does not.
I wish. :
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Frankly, my experience is that "Microsoft Certified" isn't worth the paper it was written on. Don't get me wrong, I've known some excellent programmers that were Microsoft Certified, but they only got the certification because they needed it to make an employer happy. They felt it was a silly waste of time, themselves.
It seems that the more cluless IT managers see " certified" as a mandatory requirement.
If the existance and availability of programmers and sysadmins who are "Red Hat Certified" can convince a few of these clueless IT managers to replace some of their god-forsaken NT servers with Linux boxes since it gives Linux some creadibility in their pointy-haired corporite minds than I'm all for it!
I liked the suggestion that someone made elsewere of establishing a more generic Linux certification program, perhaps the major distribution companies doing it as a joint venture. This takes the petty distribution feudes out of it.
It is also true that each distro has its own particular quiks, features, installation routines, and default setup. Even if there was a cross-distro certification program for the common stuff, if I were Red Hat, I would also want to certify people on the Red-Hat-specific things in order for my distro to gain credibility with corporate users (which is one of their target markets).
Sure, Red Hat is a for-profit corporation and they are competing for market share, but so far, in general, they're doing it the right way - producing GPL'd software and selling support.
Certification is a fact of the World of Suits. We all have to deal with it. It provides a quantifiable measure of expertise that can be understood by non-tech types. Anyone who's submitted a resume in the last few years knows how loading a resume with buzzwords gets it in front of the HR types, who then pass it to the technical types who DO understand (or at least should. . .) what you really can do. But you have to get by the HR types first, and ANY certification helps you do so.
.as to Red Hat Certification. If they were smart, they'd also offer a course to non-Linux admins, etc (admittedly, a longer course, but...), AND they'd modularize it (hmm. . .like M$ did...). Not all admins need to write code, but they DO need to configure users, run Apache, etc... In the long run, a basic "CLE", like the CNE or MCSE needs to evolve, if we really want Linux in the corporate environment. If you need to show ultimate expertise, i.e. writing new kernels, etc, why not a "Master" certification as well, like Novell has ????
Now. .
just to add my $.02
I like the idea of RedHat offering certification classes, but I also think it should be standardized. RedHat should continue offering the classes, which are a great way to go for people who arn't comfortable teaching themselves, but the test should conform to the LPI standard. That way there would be no difference between a RedHat linux certification, and say a Debian certificaiton. I also like the idea of modular program where you can be tested in different areas, allowing for someone to be just an admin, or a programmer, or even a master as described in an earlier post.
I realize this, but what I'm saying is that the test needs to be common among all linux bases. Lets say for example that some guy is hiring people for an office that already has say RedHat set up in thier network. While virtually anyone with linux experience independent of distribution could handle this job. The boss is most likly going to hire the guy who's certificate says "RedHat" because he recongnizes the name. Unless we can make it public knowledge that a linux certified person can handle all distributions equally (well almost but we don't need to get into that), certifications should be universal. Let them take the "RedHat" classes, but make em pass a standard linux test. Of course noone can force RedHat or any other group to support the standard, we sure can press the issue. And my other and completly SEPERATE point is that the idea of many levels of certification aka the MCSE (sure microsoft is evil.. but we can still learn a thing or two)
A nerd is one who enjoys/is good with computers/technology/science. A geek is they guy in circuses who bites the heads off chickens.
Well sure, we still bite the heads of chickens (I told one of my coworkers this one day as a joke in responce to me being a geek). But we tend to like the fact that we are geeks/nerds much more than the average "nerd" does.
i used to use redhat, but i'm a slacker now cause i think redhat is going commercial on our asses
--
hellraiser ( @linuxfreak.com || @nac.net )
awk 'BEGIN { printf "Just another %s hacker\n", ARGV[0] }'
Enough of this fighting.
As long as Red Hat remains compatible with all other distributions of linux what does it matter?
We need to advoid the bickering and concentrate on maintaining OpenSource and standards that will allow distributions to remain compatible.
$sig=$1 if($brain =~
When I saw the title of this article, I expected some scathing accusations of unethical practices or something. Did I read this wrong? The worst thing I saw was that someone was worried that a rehdat-specific certification is not as good as a distribution-neutral certification, right?
;-)
And then the comparison was that they were "borrowing a page from the enemy's playbook" by offering a certification program. Those bastards!
C'mon - seems like the headline is a little overblown to get attention, no? Or maybe the conspiracy nuts see a deliberate plant by M$ to cause division in the Linux camp.
Do we really need this crap? The headline would be better as: RedHat certification critiqe - but that doesn't get as many hits as: RedHat is turning into another Microsoft, does it?
Can they do that?
Maybe Rob made some kind of arrangement with Redhat. At least I hope so.
--
I still wanna know where "The Little Things" came from.
Sorry guys.
--
(trying to secretly point out the obvious without anyone knowing)
--
I wouldn't compare it to the highway or SS. The neat difference is that this software doesn't belong to the government. We're too used to everything being owned by a person, a company, or the government. IMHO, we're in deep kimshi if the government takes over ownership of open software...
--The basis of all love is respect
In regards to your first concern, I'd like to point out a couple of reasons why cetification may be a good thing.
First, as Linux's popularity (hopefully) increases, bringing with it the demand for employees, the tendency for less-than-ethical job seekers will be to inflate their knowledge. While this may not seem like a hard thing to defeat for someone in a Unix shop, for a company without any current Unix knowledge, there isn't a real easy way to figure this out. So the guy gets hired and their first Linux server doesn't work so well. The sad fact of life is that many (perhaps even most) of the people hiring technical people these days don't have the skills to verify knowledge in an interview.
Second, corporate employers have a hard time understanding the idea of "playing with the technology". For them, if you can't point to an actual job where you used technology "X", they assume you don't know it. Telling them that you've been putting two hours a night for the last few years will be met with blank stares. So certification allows those of us not so lucky as to have Linux jobs right now to get some sort of credit for the knowledge.
You saved your company all that much, and all you could ask for is Linux certification?
Damn... maybe I'm not too skilled in business politics, but if I did that for my employer, I'd want a car or something. Anyone? Anyone?
For more information, click here.
Is it enough? I agree we should not bicker and should concentrate on maintaining open code. However, the useless certification of M$ has become a standard by which all are judged. I know all to many nulls that have managed to pass the certifications. This has gotten them jobs in positions where they have no business. Because you have taken a test and passed means nothing. I too took a test and passed it. I knew nothing about NT Server 4.0, but knew enough about Windoze 95 and networking in general to pass. Yet I have never looked at a system running NT! Does that qualify me on the product? I think these certifications are bogus and a waste of money time and effort. Let us concentrate on what is important, not on how to pass a test. Many a Sys Admin could not pass a test but can run a system, *their* system faultlessly, and at times better than any book schooled and certified technodweeb.
What is an illusion?
Of course there is also the "dick measuring factor"... those who obtain cert's just so they can add them to their sig. It's like, "Hey, look at me. I'm a computer god! I've got fifteen acronyms after my name..."
J.R. Harper
Dr. of UNIX Wizardry, MCSE, CNE, CNA, PHd, BSME, BSCS, MSEE, FUCKME...
Ok, yes I'd do it.
NOW, for all you crazy Anonymous (and probably MS employees) who hate RedHat and talk about it as Microsoft would.
DOWNLOAD THE DAMN DISTRO FOR FREE. IT IS GPL.
I, for one, won't do it. I will support them and in my own way by buying like I always do their official distro.
I WANT THEM TO BE RICH.
I want games, apps, stupid apps everything on Linux.
If they are the ones that are gonna bring it, SO BE IT.
CIAO
Maybe we should remove the anonymous cowards thing to avoid having MS employees starting a hate campaign or a division campaign!
CIAO
Kill Microsoft? No! Just hire their GUI guys!
This would distract the attention of distributors (particularly smaller, non-profit like Debian) away from what they should be doing - *developing better distributions*.
I think what should be done is a couple things.
1) separate testing from prep. services
2) testing is administered by an NPO, unconnected to a dist - This ensures that any test which carries any weight is not unfairly biased towards any specific dist. This test will cover information specific to each of the major dists... there is not that much differentiation among dists when compared to commonality, further this ensures certification is given to people with a wider knowledge of Linux than just 1 dist.
3) Preparation services can be offered by anyone - If somebody wants to prepare on his own, great, if Red Hat wants to offer prep. services, great - in order to give their clients the best service (so the clients get the best marks on the exam), they would have to provide info about all of the dists covered, not just theirs. Hey, if a high school, tech. college, etc. wants to offer prep. services - perfect - their customers just have to pass through one unifying exam.
I know that I would prefer to hire someone with a wider range of knowledge about Linux than just Red Hat (or just Debian...)
---
???
i'd agree with this.
granting, i was in this guy's class, and we spent
a very large chunk of time playing xgalaga.
but it is a positive thing for a lot of people,
and i think that's a good thing.
rj
Red Hat is doing what needs to be done. Getting Big time vendors to provide commercial apps, making it easy for NON-TECHIES to get their foot into the Linux door, and most importantly SELLING LINUX TO THE SUITS. We as programmers, users, peanut gallery bickerers shout rally around them, whether we choose their distro or not. Red Hat is a business, THERE IS NO SHAME IN BEING A BUSINESS. I would rather MAKE MY LIVING WORKING WITH LINUX, than work with ms stuff.
Red Hat has provided $$ to developers of GPLware, they give LUG's awesome FREE stuff, and they are really COOL folks.
All you RH = MS people should really think about the fact the PEOPLE NEED TO WORK SO THAT THERE IS FOOD IN THE REFIRDGERATOR, and RH is a group of folks who are doing a GOOD THING while EARNING A LIVING. (not to mention grabbing MS by the throat)
-Ken