Certification

[Aaron Toponce]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:55:02PM -0600, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> Why are vendor neutral certifications such as LPI and Security+ 
> considered "no good"?  The vendor specific certifications (e.g. RHCT, 
> Cisco, MCSE) may fetch a higher price, but I would think also having the 
> vendor neutral certifications help broaden your opportunities.  Why lock 
> your self into only one vendor?  I would also think that having these 
> less costly certs is also good certification preparation for some of the 
> ridiculously expensive certs.

Most vendor-neutral certs are no good, because there is no vendor to
make sure they are up-to-date, reliable, and real-world. Honestly, LPI
and Linux+ tests you about floppy drives and old kernel versions that
haven't been used in decades. Further, most vendor-neutral certs don't
provide hands-on training nor testing. They're study on your own, then
fill out a multiple choice exam.

Also, I wouldn't say MCSE fetches a higher price. My understanding of
that certification is that everybody and their dog has the cert, and it
doesn't mean much in the real world. While the RHCT/RHCE are harder to
achieve, so there's actual value if you find an administrator who holds
those certs. I understand the Cisco certs to be the same way.

Long story short, most vendor-neutral certs, and many vendor certs are
low-hanging fruit. They don't mean much in the long term.

-- 
. O .   O . O   . . O   O . .   . O .
. . O   . O O   O . O   . O O   . . O
O O O   . O .   . O O   O O .   O O O
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20100825/db6342da/attachment.bin