[Gllug] Red Hat versus other qualifications

[Stuart Sears]

On 01/07/09 10:59, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> IME Linux certification isn't worth the paper it's printed on. All
> the RH-certified admins I worked with were morons who used GUIs to
> admin servers, just like RH taught them (in 2002-2006, this may have
> changed now). If you're hiring, I wonder whether certification is
> being used to substitute for competent interviewing techniques? I
> would hesitate to trust RH or LPI or whoever to do my interviews for
> me.

I really have to take issue with this as it is utter nonsense.
I can't speak for the quality of the admins you have worked with, but I
can speak to the RH courses and content of them - I was a Red Hat Instructor
for 5 years (throughout most of that period, actually) and that is not
how systems administration is (or was) taught. At all.

The tools can be used (and are often shown) but in general (admittedly, 
apart from
configuring cups** and possibly X) administration is very much 
console-based,
dealing with configuration files and command-line tools.
[...]
> Don't get me wrong. Recent anecdotal on-list evidence suggests the
> RH certification has improved to the extent that they don't ONLY
> teach admin using their horrible GUI tools. But I'm not convinced at
> all by the argument that you need to be "certified" to use their
> horrible mix of broken backports and ancient userland. Maybe
> "certifiable" instead?

Ah, I think we see a minor bias here... :)

That's an entirely unhelpful statement, IMHO (and inaccurate).
broken backports of what? (that's a genuine question, btw)

I should also make it clear that although I work for RH, I certainly do not
speak on their behalf. Just in case, you understand.


Stuart

** because lpadmin is horrific
-- 
Stuart Sears RHC*
"It's today!" said Piglet.
"My favourite day," said Pooh.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug