
Linux Training from Compaq 36
LanceTaylor writes, "Compaq has developed two Linux Integration and Performance courses, one for the Intel architecture and one for the Alpha processor based machines. The first public classes are going to be held at the end of April.
Descriptions of the courses can be found here for the Intel course and here for the Alpha course.
These courses are being added to the Compaq Accredited Systems Engineer (ASE) program."
This is a Ploy (Score:1)
A simple related question (Score:1)
Since Linux is HOT nowadays, locally I've been swamped by many of my friends wanting to know more about, or learn how to use Linux.
I can't find the time to do all the handholding and there isn't any "LUG" in where I stay - don't ask me to start a LUG, I just can't find the time, at least not yet.
So, this is my question - Is there any online place where one can go learn more about Linux, or some basic Linux training (other than the compaq one that cost $$$)? I mean the web-version, not the newsgroup/mailling list version since most of my friends aren't exactly familiar with the Net yet.
Any answer would be very much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Compaq certs (Score:1)
The whole cert process (from various companies) seems to be getting out of hand. I mean, I could qualify, but..., $1k to 5k seems a bit out of range. (ala, RedHat as an example) I cannot afford this, and my employer is a tight as!.
Also, breaking down the cert to various levels in Linux would be good. By that I mean, ok..., can you setup a firewall with IP Masq, or perhaps just simply setting up a workstation, or perhaps a Linux server with Samba and Novell in a Wan, etc?
(get the idea?)
Regards...
Re:This is a Ploy (Score:1)
my favorite anagram for DIGITAL was GITLAID,
someone had changed the letters around on an LA36
on the manufacturing floor like this.
I think that was the last innovative thing they did.
Do they offer proofreading courses too? (Score:1)
I can't believe.. (Score:1)
--
Re:How is 'System Engineer' title qualified? (Score:1)
The whole idea of "software engineer" is a crock. Writing software well is more art than science. It's not like building bridges or radios or washing machines. The problems encountered are typically much more unique and trying to find some "standards" so that the question may be asked, "is this code 'up to code'?" as you might ask "is this building 'up to code'" is a fool's errand.
That's why, though my title contains the word engineer, I put "programmer" on my 1040. That's what I do, I program computers. I don't "engineer software".
Re:Prerequisites. (Score:1)
Matt
Before y'all start complaining about the cost... (Score:1)
2. I believe Compaq still flies all their ASE's gratis to a yearly conference. I know past locales include San Diego and Toronto. Not bad.
matt
Prerequisites. (Score:1)
* Sair Linux and GNU Certified Administrator (LCA), Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE), or equivalent certification
* 6 months experience using Linux or equivalent
* Compaq Systems Technologies
That kind of stuff scares me. Would Alan Cox(Err stratch that he works for RH.) would Linus be able to attend? Does he has a LCA or RHCE? I mean, most of your true linux professionals do not have these kind of certifications. But, I guess those kind of people wouldn't be wanting linux training from compaq, so perhaps my fear is unwarnated. Although, I still think prequisites for linux class is insane. You simply cannot rely on certifications in the Linux world.
linux and compaq?!? (Score:1)
this is good (Score:1)
embracing linux. It will be interesting
to see what happens if there are multiple
certification programs. Will certification
tend to be distro-specific (or even hardware
specific)? Or will businesses (the people hiring
those who bother to get the certification)
just consider linux to be linux?
In my opinion, linux is linux.
I hate Compaq, And I hate you, DAD! er.... (Score:1)
-Fred Benenson
Fredbenenson.com [fredbenenson.com]
Re:Training versus Education (Score:1)
Re:A simple related question (Score:1)
Re:Linux and Compaq my ASS...Apple has 80386 CERT! (Score:1)
Lance Taylor (Score:1)
--
Does the computer industry need certifications? (Score:1)
Some people argue that we don't need certifications, just experience. I think that we need BOTH!
Experience is a good teacher. However, it does not always teach you everything you need to know. Lets look at two administrators from two companies with the same number of years of 'experience'. Company A is a small business with one administrator. He is in charge of the firewall, router, email, database, user support, printers, remote access...everything. Company B is a large company with mutiple admins. The admins have divided up the work and the admin we are looking at has been running the database server full time. Both admins have the same number of years of experience. Does this mean that both have the same level of expertise? NO! Admin A has a wider range of knowledge, BUT lower expertise on the database server than Admin B. Experience does not guarantee a specific set of skills.
Certification is a way to quantify what knowledge you have. That knowledge could be learned from any number of sources including experience. Some people argue against certification training classes saying that people should just pick up a book. These people obviously do not understand how adults learn. There are three types of learners: visual, audible and kinetic. The visual learners learn by reading, audible learners learn by listening to an instructor and kinetic learners learn by doing. Actually everyone is a combination of the above three types, but one is usually much more dominant than the other. Someone that is a strong kinetic or audible learner will not learn very well from reading a book. Therefore they need classes to go to. The best classes and instructors will take into account the three learning types and accomodate all of them. You can give a student a book, explain details or answer questions they may have and assist them in doing a hands-on lab.
Another reason for having classes is that companies will send their people to classes. This gives the overworked admin TIME to try to learn something new.
Prerequisites for the classes are also necessary. Prereqs help to quantify that the student has at least a certain amount of knowledge so that the class can stay on topic and not be spent going over material that should already be known. Students coming to class without meeting the prereqs slow down the class with all of their questions and take up more of the instructors time during labs. Someone asked if Alan Cox could come to class. Yes, he could. Most of the prerequisites for certification classes are not enforced rather they become 'suggested' prereqs. However, does the fact that Alan Cox is an excellent kernel hacker automatically mean that he is also an excellent systems adminsitrator? No. He may very well be, but the skills involved in programming are different than the skills involved in administration. The two jobs are not interchangeable. There may be people that have the skills to do both, but excellence in one area is not a guarantee of excellence in another.
Technical Certifications are like college degrees. They both demonstrate that a person can learn and can finish a long term commitment. They also both quantify that a person has mastered (at that time) certain knowledge points. How good they are after the degree or certification is up to the individual. The best mix is certification WITH experience.
Re:this is good (Score:1)
The Compaq training is not distro specific. Linux is Linux. It currently covers Red Hat and SuSE only. This is because Compaq has relationships built with those companies already. You should expect to see TurboLinux and Caldera supported in the future as Compaq develops relationships with them.
The SAIR certification [sairinc.com] is non-distro specific as well. The courseware actually comes with 8 different distros.
Re:Linux and Compaq my ASS...Apple has 80386 CERT! (Score:1)
Linux and Compaq my ASS...Apple has 80386 CERT! (Score:1)
Re:Linux certification equals death of sun micro! (Score:1)
2) How is it leeching of our innovation?
Did you contribute to the innovation? Looks like someone tripped and fell onto the "I like Open Source. Up with Linux, down with every other OS." bandwagon.
Re:Finally... (Score:1)
Re:How is 'System Engineer' title qualified? (Score:2)
NSPE has the actual "Engineer" titles that they regulate, but IIRC, the most traditional usage (the guy who drives a train) isn't one of them either. Just because somebody starts certifying pastry chefs as "Dessert Architects" doesn't make them anything more than a "certified" pastry chef... so what's the problem? At some point in the future, it wouldn't surprise me if the psychiatric profession, in a fit of marketroid-inspired frenzy, goes out and rebrands themselves as "Attitude Engineers". *g*
Now, that isn't to say that improper usage CAN'T create confusion, just that it generally doesn't (especially in the case of "Domestic Engineer", which may trace its etymology back to 1950s sitcoms). The counterexample that comes to mind is that someone colossally stupid, who has never heard of the company with the world's largest market cap, might mistake someone who shows up with a piece of paper saying "_blank_ Certified _blank_ Engineer" and a logo that looks like the Golden Gate Bridge for a real Civil Engineer, but that's even pushing it....
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
Re:linux and compaq?!? (Score:2)
This is because a server has to work with whatever an IT department wants to put on it, whether that be Windows NT, Windows 2000, Netware, Linux, SCO Unix, *BSD, Solaris x86 or something else.
I researched this (the hardware support) last summer, when I worked with installing Compaq Proliant servers in a pretty NT-only IT department. I wanted to know if there was a good technical reason why I couldn't put Linux on these nice machines. It turned out that there wasn't. It was just political...
Ultrix training, part 2 (Score:2)
These are probably the same guys that did (do?) the Ultrix training... Teaching one BSDish Unix isn't all so difficult from teaching another, just bone up on the Sys V-isms of Linux, and you've got a whole fleet of Linux trainers in no time flat.
darren
Cthulhu for President! [cthulhu.org]
Re:How is 'System Engineer' title qualified? (Score:2)
On the subject of this Compaq certification, Compaq guys tend to be very good at installation, optimization etc. on their own hardware. If you happen to have hundreds of their servers, and tens of thousands of their desktops (as we do), then that specific knowledge is not just nice to have, it's essential. Someone else commented that a Compaq server is just a "big Intel box" - right, but that's like saying that a Ferrari is "just a fast car". I wouldn't want Joe from the local fix-anything garage tinkering with my Ferrari, and if you're serious about servers, you don't let just anyone play with them either. Compaq are heavily into custom hardware and management extensions, which work extremely well, but do have to be learnt. The day you can run SmartStart (Compaq's guided server setup routine) for Linux will be a big step forward for corporate acceptance.
Finally... (Score:2)
Too bad they won't pay for me to travel to Houston, but oh well.
UNIX cert is useless and defeating (Score:2)
Re:How is 'System Engineer' title qualified? (Score:2)
This applies just as easily to the computer world as it does to mechanical or civil engineering. No one in the civil engineering world gets the title of 'engineer' by simply doing a really good job in the workplace for some set number of years! You get accredited training, you register, you work under another engineer for a few years (5 where I live anyway).
I'm not saying that everyone working as a professional in the IT industry should do this! I've already heard of professional IT associations starting up for programmers, and I think it's a great idea. The criteria they set can be whatever they deem sufficient to allow their members to hold professional respect and status. Such an IT professional society will NOT have the right to call their members 'engineers' though, unless they fall under the approval of the already established engineering associations.
Call them 'certified Compaq technicians', or 'certified Compaq solutions providers' (MS's funky moniker), I don't care. But don't throw around the name 'engineer' after someone completes some month-long course on how to sysadmin a bunch of Compaqs or something. It belittles those who have worked hard to get a MUCH more complete grasp of the computing industry, and have thus earned the title 'engineer'.
more big name Linux support (Score:2)
What the hell? (Score:2)
That's some pretty expensive wallpaper.
---
How is 'System Engineer' title qualified? (Score:3)
I'm not starting a whiney CS-can't-teach-software-engineering complaint, don't get me wrong. I think that particular debate is pretty useless. But actually running around with some piece of paper saying you are an 'engineer' is a different matter. Engineering is a profession which is entrusted with enforcing standards, and with allowing only fully trained and tested individuals to use the title.
I'm not going to try and expound big reasons why the title 'engineer' is sacred or anything ... to keep it practical, it's simply ILLEGAL to fraudulantly claim you are an engineer (just as it's illegal to falsely claim you're a doctor, or a police officer). So are these 'system engineer' titles only given to actual professional engineers or just anyone who can pass a quick test? And if so, are they at least getting some shit from professional engineering associations?
Re:linux and compaq?!? (Score:3)
Not true!   I have *3* Compaq Presarios:
I researched this (the hardware support) last summer, when I worked with installing Compaq Proliant servers in a pretty NT-only IT department. I wanted to know if there was a good technical reason why I couldn't put Linux on these nice machines. It turned out that there wasn't. It was just political...
It is political!  
Go for it folks - works fine.
Training versus Education (Score:4)
What this does NOT mean is people who have been through these training programs are any good at creative problem solving. To deal with architecture, complex problems, etc. it takes a lot more than vendor training.
This is just giving us many more marginal Unix/Linux admins, which we really don't need. What we need are more GOOD admins. These "training programs" should start calling themselves LCSE, because that's about what they are. Anybody who's good enough at thinking problems through, problem solving, etc. to be a really good admin doesn't NEED this kind of training.
Re:Training versus Education (Score:4)