aaron.toponce at gmail.com
Wed Aug 25 15:21:26 MDT 2010
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
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20100825/db6342da/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG