On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 14:33 -0700, Guy Fraser wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 14:45 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: > > Guy Fraser wrote: > > > I am not trying to knock you, or the CISSP program, but in my > > > experience most accreditation systems are just money making > > > scams. As the saying goes "the proof is in the pudding", if you > > > are capable of securing, keeping a machine secure and fixing > > > machines that have been compromised, then you can claim to be > > > experienced, and it doesn't matter what letters you put after > > > your name. > > > > I second that. However, the way HR departments work can be described > > with this simple command: > > > > grep -v alphabet-soup list-of-applicants.txt > reject-list.txt > > > > Basically, very often you get screened out long before anybody competent > > gets a chance to look into your resume. So it is up to you. Not > > wasting time and money on some alphabet soup and lowering your chances > > of finding a job, or spending some time and money on some sily title. > > Sometimes I think this is conspiracy between HR departments and > > certification organizations... Whatever it is, it is very profitable > > business. Just look how much Microsoft is charging for classes and > > certificates... > > > That was absolutely my point. > > I am the senior administrator at an ISP, when I started all of our > servers except one Sun Sparc running Solaris and one Dec VAX running > OSF/1 were running NT, even a Dec Alpha was running NT. I quickly > moved many of the servers to SlackWare then Redhat until the SCO > lawsuite made management uncomfortable. Now we have one W2K server > for customers requiring ASP all of our other production servers > are running BSD. We had a number of MCSEs since I started, and not > a single one was a decent administrator. Most of them could list the > OSI layers, but could not figure out how to configure a firewall. > They tried to replace some of my Linux and Unix machines with > "more manageable" windows machines, fortunately the constant > stream of blue screens during testing, was not managements > favourite colour. I nicknamed the testing room as "the blue room" > to the disappointment of the MCSE at the time. The nickname stuck, > that MCSE didn't. We had a couple more MCSEs after that, but now > management is convinced MCSE is a four letter word for danger, or > my favourite "Most Costs Shall Escalate". > > > BOFH... Hmmmm... Wonder how that would look in my resume, gota try it > > out at least once ;-) > > > I thought that should get a laugh, one of the guys at work even wears > the tee-shirt. > > But you see....That is an inaccurate statement. Just because the MCSEs that you met were morons doesn't mean that all of us are. I happen to be an MCSE. I also happen to be a large proponent of Linux, Unix, BSD, and Open Source. I believe in the right tool for the job. Microsoft Windows as the desktop OS and domain authentication server makes sense for ease of administration and interoperability between the server and desktop. However, I would never on a dare suggest that Windows makes the best solution as a database server, a web server, a firewall server, or a myriad of other uses that Unix/BSD/Linux is MUCH better suited for. My home LAN is a prime example of my philosophy. My main PC is a Windows XP box. My main server, for authentication and file storage is a Windows 2003 domain controller. My firewall, intranet server which is also running my database, and BBS server are running Linux. Every place I have ever worked for or contracted out to I have always suggested the most applicable OS for the situation. Sometimes that's Windows. Most times it is not. Just because someone has an MCSE doesn't automatically make them an OS bigot, nor does it make them a moron. -- Frank Tanner III <pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
