Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Novell's Certified Linux Engineer 248

Posted by CmdrTaco from the not-a-bad-idea dept.
AEnertia writes "Novell have been quick in moving ahead with their recent aquisition of SuSE. I was browsing their site when I found this page describing their new certification (CLE) under their certifications programs. Looks like they are positioning their well respected certification program for their newest asset."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell's Certified Linux Engineer More

Novell's Certified Linux Engineer

Comments Filter:

  • I just hope.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaphunK ( 565928 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:51PM (#7593031) Homepage
    That this certification is worth more than my SCO Master ACE. Cheers,

  • Unique test for this cert... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) <bc90021.bc90021@net> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:51PM (#7593033) Homepage
    From the Novell site [novell.com]:

    the test

    The Novell Practicum test for the Novell Certified Linux Engineer (Novell CLE) will require you to prove your Novell Nterprise Linux Services knowledge in a "real life" setting. Your knowledge of both Linux and Novell Nterprise Linux Services will be tested.

    The practicum is basically a remote connection to a live server bank with Linux installed. Using the remote access session, you will be given a scenario with tasks to complete. These tasks will include configuring Novell Services on Linux, performing basic Linux tasks, and may even get into some troubleshooting.

    You will need to perform these tasks just as you would in a real environment. You will be evaluated automatically on each of the servers and will you receive a pass or fail exam result. The length of the exam is estimated to be about two hours.

    There is no "written" test anticipated at this time.

    For once, there is nothing written, and you actually have to demonstrate proficiency! No more "wannabes" (*cough*MCSE*cough*) merley memorising and getting the Certification.

    • Re:Unique test for this cert... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bluenova ( 533033 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:59PM (#7593074)
      You know, the cisco testing has simulations now as part of the test. Gives you 3 routers and situation, you have to set them up as requested, make sure they work, etc.

      • Re:Unique test for this cert... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @07:33PM (#7595139)
        Of course, part of the simulation is the built-in help featuers (command completion, etc.) as well as graying out all of the commands that don't work in that particular simulation. If you're vaguely familiar with *nix CLIs and are able to tell an IP address from an IRQ number, you can get through those simulations easily enough.

    • Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)

      by t0ny ( 590331 )
      Im glad to see Novell adding further to their product line-up, and hope it goes well for them. Ive always liked Netware, ever since my first exposure to it at 4.1

      BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.

      But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially w

      • Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)

        by muonman ( 162064 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:25PM (#7593182) Homepage
        Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

        Its an even poorer craftsman who cant tell a good tool from a bad one.

      • So it's a safe bet you buy all your tools from the dollar store?

        Seriously, there are orders of magnitude more paper based MCSE's than people who know what they are doing. Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system. You can't do much with them and therefore there is not much to figure out.

        I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft. Some of the developers may know a bit more but they ch

      • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @03:08PM (#7593653)


        BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.

        You're right - a good MCSE is an asset to a company running Windows. Heck - a good admin familiar with his employer's arhictecture is an asset to any company. But I disagree with your dismisal of paper MCSE's.

        Maybe its the difference between your working environment and mine. A real possibility since I've worked both within outstanding resource-rich environments and with organizations who, to be polite, are simply cheap. In any case, I have seen a real market for the stereotypical paper MCSE. They exist. And they keep their jobs.

        Don't get me wrong - not all MCSEs are of that sort. I've met some very technical Windows types that had a rather in-depth knowledge of the platform. Which has lead to some really great technical discussions (and some very handy exchanges of expertise from time to time). But I've found them to rare.


        But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially when they can fix things you cant; most *nix people just wave their hands and complain about Microsoft instead of actually *fixing* the Windows servers. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

        This is kind of an odd thing to say. After all, when do we throw a Windows admin at a Solaris system?

        Its interesting that the tool anology comes up. The whole reason techies get impassioned about verious systems and whatnot has a lot to do with craftsmen and tools. After all, sysadmins tend to be craftsmen. And while an expert craftsman might be able to make a chair using nothing but a hammer and screwdriver, they're definately going to feel contrained. They won't be able to produce the level of work they know they could with the right tools (or at least tools they are comfortable with).

        My work desktop environment right now is Win2K due to various contraints (office automation apps, a few Windows machines I have to keep an eye on, etc). Yet I go to quite a bit of trouble to make that environment as Unix-like as I can. I really prefer that environment. And I've been able to pull off a few things recently that have had my coworkers wowed (thanks to Cygwin).

        One last point - I've experienced both sides. I started as a rather oblivious Windows admin. Then I had to pick up some Unix machines and found an environment that I preferred. I will only grudgingly admin a Windows machine from this point on (and I ocassionally still do). I can certainly understand why people do not want to work with Windows systems. But then - I suppose I can sypmathize with anybody who doesn't want to touch *nix (even if I don't agree with them).

        Someone claiming that a *nix admin should just learn to fix Windows instead of complaining about it sounds more like ignorance to me than insight.
        • This is kind of an odd thing to say. After all, when do we throw a Windows admin at a Solaris system?

          As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it. So they try, and fail; for the most part, its hard NOT to work in IT and have no exposure to Windows, but they think being an expert on one platform somehow makes them an expert on another, and so to mask their lack of knowledge, they just say Windows is stupid and not made 'correctly'. Never mind the fact that

          • Re:Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)

            by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )


            As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it.

            But as you point this out, you have to keep in mind just who is fostering this perception.

            First, it comes squarely from Microsoft. Windows has always been marketed as the easy solution. Even on the server. Heck - Microsoft even claims that Windows admins cost less. The implication here is that your admin doesn't have to be as experienced or skilled.

            Secondly, Windows proponents will often push "ease of use

      • there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed

        So can I... just hit enter a bunch of times in the Debian installer. (sorry, too easy)
    • For once, there is nothing written, and you actually have to demonstrate proficiency! No more "wannabes" (*cough*MCSE*cough*) merley memorising and getting the Certification.

      Since you are evaluated automatically by the servers, in what way is this fundamentally different from a written multiple choice test? There is no human on the other side to whom you are required to EXPLAIN the REASONS for what you are doing.

      The Novell Practicum (oh, well, at least it sounds academic) is just another example of this

      • Since you are evaluated automatically by the servers, in what way is this fundamentally different from a written multiple choice test?

        In a multiple choice test you have 2 to 10 possibilites to choose from. In a real world setting your choices are practically unlimited.
    • I was one of the first 200 people(got a nice leather jacket as a gift) to receive Novell's CDE Certification [novell.com]. There were 2 written tests along with a 2 hour practicum in which you remote into a 5 server-farm setup at Novell and fix a lot of broken shit(probably left over by an MCNE). These lab tests definitely seperate the men from the boys. I had NDS experience since it came out with Novell v4 and I can tell you no matter how many books you read on NDS if you did not have experience there is no way you cou
    • The Redhat test is harder than this. What is this sissy stuff about configuring Novell Services and performing basic Linux tasks.

      I was excited when I first heard about the Novell CLE, but it looks pretty watered down. The Red Hat (RHCE) test is 6 hours and includes troubleshooting, a written test, and configuring services with advanced administrative tasks.

      IMHO Novell should start out a lot tougher. They can always relax the program, but if they set the initial bar too low and anyone can obtain th

  • Yikes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:52PM (#7593038) Homepage
    Novell's Certified Linux Engineer

    Just one? Might be an uphill battle for Novell then...

    • Re:Yikes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:23PM (#7593178) Journal
      You might be really wrong.

      If this one is high level enough, then it might be good. Problem of all exams is that they aren't hard enough and practically anybody can pass them

      I went to RHCE, but I was really dissapointed with low level of knowledge to pass the exam. My M$ exams (fact for anybody who wants to pass them: just think commercialy M$ positive and you'll pass, absolute no knowledge needed just economical common sense) are pure need and if it is possible I rather shut up than say that I have them. Unfortunate that's a bussiness must have for me.
      • I think the parent post was making an inference that there was only a single Novell certified Engineer... the possessive indication in the quoted phrase is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as the sole Certified Engineer that works for Novell...
        • Still, Novell is Novell. As far as I suspect they will provide very (console) similiar interface for Linux Novell services. So one for few underlaying platforms is suitable.

          They should just make it hard so not anyone but knowledgeable can do it. Or everybody should start having X certified Genius exams to separate better from common, but I guess not even one company has some interest in doing that.

  • First thing you see... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MikeCapone ( 693319 ) <skelterhell AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:54PM (#7593050) Homepage Journal
    So the first thing that you see when you go to the Novell page is a guy laying on his back, arms cross behind his head.

    Are they saying that we are lazy?
    • No, no, it signifies all the extra free time you'll have from not having to deal with the "secure" Windows servers....

      Kierthos
    • yes, they are right.

    • I'm proud to be lazy! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WolfVenge ( 238254 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @02:57PM (#7593593)
      The adjective lazy means, according to Merriam-Webster Online [m-w.com]: disinclined to activity or exertion

      I suggest that any good technically competent person is lazy, and someone I'd rather hire. Put yourself in a supervisory role for a moment. Who would you rather hire:

      1. the person who enjoys running from fire to fire and is demonstrably active at all times
      2. The person who works diligently to prevent those fires from occurring in the first place.

      The second person, disliking the "fireman" syndrome so common in support departments, would have to be defined as lazy in that he/she is disinclined to work putting out fires. One can argue that the time spent in preventing the fires in the first place disqualifies the person from being called lazy. It's a shame that upper management tends to look at hard numbers, and it is much more difficult to provide a number for prevented problems, than it is to provide a number for solved problems. Upper management sees that person A solved 30 problems, person B ( the lazy one ) solved 10 problems in the same time period. However, management often does not quantify the extra work person B did to prevent those 20 problems, they just give person A great praise, and quietly replace person B for "underperforming".

      Suffice it to say, I'd rather hire the lazy ones.

  • SCO certification (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:55PM (#7593051)
    I was checking the SCO website and came across their "SCO certified IP lawyer" certification webpage.

    What do you guys think? Worth getting?

    • Re:SCO certification (Score:5, Funny)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:05PM (#7593097)
      Your sentences are far too well thought out & constructed. If you are to spew a steady stream of SCOX solicitor duckspeak, incoherence, bullcrap & FUD, I would suggest intoxication or a partial lobotomy.

    • Re:SCO certification (Score:5, Funny)

      by mackman ( 19286 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @02:18PM (#7593429)
      My employer paid for my SCLE (SCO Certified Linux Engineer) and the test went something like this:

      1. You have a network of 90 desktop Linux PCs, 4 dual-procressor Linux workgroup servers, and 1 16-way Linux enterprise server. How much do you pay SCO?

      a) $142,000
      b) $62,000,000
      c) $118,000,000
      d) All of the above

  • The Price of Doing Certs (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:56PM (#7593060) Homepage
    Ah, the endless loop. When employed, certs are not needed, when unemployed they are not affordable...


    Could-a, should-a, would-a, didn't.


    Bob-

    • And the latest fad, having to work for a company for at least 18 months after they pay for your certification training, or you owe it back to them. And this place I'm talking to wants to have me take 4 or 5 certification courses at thousands each. Any of you remember the old movie called I think "angel city" about a southern "labor camp city", where everyone was made to be so indebted to the company for supplies, food & shelter that they could never work off the debt and couldn't leave??.....
      • In every case I have seen, including folks who had thier MBA paid for by a employer, as part of the hiring package when they moved to a new company the new employer bought out the contract. If an new employer really wants you then they will do what it takes to get you. Note also that in some cases retraining is covered by student loans or other aid and in the US can also be tax deductable. There is more than one way to handle retraining expense.
        • 2 years or more ago, yes....but things are quite sucky here with employment offers at many companies in the N. Illinois area at present. no buying out former training/education contracts, no relocation assistance, and my favorite, contributing $100-200 a month to healthcare plan of your choice, that's your "benefits".
      • I'd want in my contract an exit method where if they canned me for any reason other than a breach of law that I wouldn't pay a dime. Of course that might make them disinclined to hire me, but the fact is that they can train you and then fire you if they so desire. It makes sense to require you to work there for a while, but if they can shitcan you, then it's a losing proposition.

  • Novell had a Linux track years ago (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Twid ( 67847 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:59PM (#7593071) Homepage
    Novell had a Internet track to the CNE years ago, back in the days when Netscape Enterprise Web Server ran on Netware. The classes were horrible and I feel bad for anyone that paid to take them.

    It appears from the website that this is just a single 5-day course on Novell Nterprise Services for Linux (Netware File and Print and Directory Services running on Linux), not a course on SuSE or Ximian. They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.

    It's kind of a stretch that they are calling this a Certified Linux Engineer, since there is no actual Linux training involved, just training on Novell's product running on Linux. In fact, the course material says that you should know Linux before taking the course.

    So, unfortunately this seems like yet another empty certification, and shame on Novell for calling someone a Certified Linux Engineer when all they did was take a 5-day course on one of Novell's Linux products.

    • It's kind of a stretch that Microsoft cranks out people called "certified software engineers" too.

    • Re:Novell had a Linux track years ago (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:18PM (#7593160)
      Since the only *real* purpose of a cert is to give companies "good vibes" about you or get your foot in the door, who cares what the real training is? A person has good troubleshooting & admin skills, or they don't. Other than that, if your cert is printed on absorbent paper you could wipe your ass with it. I've worked with too many people who had more certs than Seymour Cray who were dumber & more useless than a bag of rocks. Anyway, if Novell/SuSE takes off, having this cert could open door for you, and it's then served its only purpose.

      • I agree than some PHBs (or maybe Pointy Haired People Who Hire Consultants) are clueless when it comes to what certs are good and bad, I do thing that in the IT industry people generally know the quality certification from the low-quality ones. I think most people now know that there are a lot of Paper MCSEs and CNEs out there, and they don't look for just that cert when hiring a consultant.

        So, the problem with this certification from Novell is that it's called a Certified Linux Engineer, but it doesn't r
        • ...but it doesn't require any knowledge at all of the two Linux distributions that they now own.

          Two? Which two? SuSE I know about... are you referring to Ximian (which is a desktop shop, not a Linux distro)?

    • They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.

      The Parent poster is wrong on so many levels.

      1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.

      2.) You don't have to take any courses whatsoever, but you might want to if you don't think you can pass the exam with self study.

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bziman ( 223162 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:05PM (#7593094) Homepage Journal
    $2,000 for a five day course!

    Okay, for all (three) of you who don't already know Linux, and who aren't interested in the "Novell" portions of this class, I'll be teaching GNU/Linux for the bargain price of (oh, it pains be to quote a figure so high) only $1,000 for a five day course!

    Step right up!

    If you're a bright class we might even get to advanced topics such as systems administration or software development with GCC and vi!

    • or for only $1250 you can sign up for *my* course where we even show you how to build your own software from source code with the magic of "configure, make, make install"

      • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Informative)

        by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:20PM (#7593169) Journal
        or for only $1250 you can sign up for *my* course where we even show you how to build your own software from source code with the magic of "configure, make, make install"

        Egads, you've never worked in an environment with more than one server, have you? If I caught one of my guys doing that, I'd either fire him (if at my civilian job) or Article 15 him (if at my Reserve unit). Never, never, ever run "configure,make,make install", take a few extra steps and build an actual package, *then* install the software. This way you can:
        * back out easily. 'rpm -e' or 'pkgrm' are easier than grepping through the Makefiles for all of the installed programs and piping that to 'find / -name $1 -exec rm' or whatever.
        * copy the package to other servers and install quickly and easily. This allows you create once, install anywhere, and you can even script the installation process.
        * avoid overwriting existing files. Any decent package manager will complain if the target file(s) already exists.
        • hahah, I certainly have worked in production data centers & mostly used packages for those reasons. HOWEVER, if a SAN vendor tells you that YOU MUST COMPILE YOUR HBA DRIVER USING THESE STEPS TO MAINTAIN WARRANTY/SUPPORT, then that is what you will do. You will not make an rpm, or I will fire you.
        • There's room for both ways of life. Build things in /usr/local the old fashioned way; supersede them with packages installed to /usr/bin or perhaps an /opt depending on how you feel about it. Of course if you can get your packages submitted into the repository for your distribution, so much the better.
    • only $1,000 for a five day course!

      I've got $0.79 and some pocket lint, will that do?
    • 2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something(with a certification that somebody might even respect). the difference with you and novel is that you don't have a reputation that anybody would trust(for all they know you could just sell nice 'certified by me' papers for 1000$ a piece, "get a cheap diploma!").

      and usually there's some extra niceys thrown in of course and blabba blabba blaa, i don't know what extra niceys come in this though.

      of course i wouldn't be able t

      • 2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something

        Most of the 5-day training courses are priced for companies who want training for their employees. They are generally way too expensive for individuals to pay for out of pocket.

        If you want to get a Linux certification and not spend a lot of money (and you basically already have Linux skills and can do some self study), then the Linux Professional Institute Certification [lpi.org] is a better way to go. To reach Intermediate Level y

    • I'll do it for $950 and you can sleep on the sofabed in the back room.

  • Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rex Code ( 712912 ) <rexcode@gmail.com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:12PM (#7593124)
    I went to a real engineering school to learn Computer Engineering (a 4 year EEE + CS program), and every time I see a company create a certification program that takes less than a month to become an "engineer", well... it makes me cringe. I know in other parts of the world that it's not legal to abuse terminology like that, and wish the US would adopt some similar standards. This dilutes the prestige associated with earning an actual engineering degree (really, there is some!).

    I know the difference between a real engineer and a fake one, but I'm not so sure the average guy on the street understands the distinction. I also suspect people in hiring positions give a lot more weight to a certification that pretends to be an engineering degree than they really should.
    • This is indeed very true. The company I work at also has this tendency to look for such pseudo-engineers. Being an engineer myself (MSc. in manufacturing automation) I keep telling them to look for real qualification that lasts, not just short lived and narrow focused stuff that can be acquired in a few weeks' time.

      Becoming a real engineer takes time - a lot of time - digging down deep into the core of the matter, not just scratching the surface and pretending to know what's going on.

      Unfortunately, the

    • Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BeerMilkshake ( 699747 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:42PM (#7593258)
      Of course, if IT became a Profession (like engineering, medicine, law, real-estate, accounting,...) then there would be a regulating body with real power to stop people from practicing when they do not have the necessary credentials.

      Such a body would also help educational institutions in preparing their curricula and would promote ethical practice.

      A Profession of IT would also elevate the standard of practice and protect our careers a little better than the current 'wild west' system.
      • Um. The difference between the professions you name above on one hand, and IT on the other, is that there isn't one giant monopoly corporation that is The Face Of [Engineering|Medicine|etc.] in the public mind. I very much fear that any national or international regulating body with legal power would become a tool of that one giant monopoly corporation, or possibly a consortium of that corporation and couple of others ... and true software innovation would effectively grind to a halt.
    • Most "real engineers" I work with and know personally seem to have spent more time learning about how they're better than everyone else than actually aquiring any skills.

      This is why they usually end up getting pushed into management, so they get out of the way of the people who actually know what they're doing.

      • Most "real engineers" I work with and know personally seem to have spent more time learning about how they're better than everyone else than actually aquiring any skills.
        When I think of the "real engineers" I work with and know personally, I know why it takes them that long.

    • Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Graelin ( 309958 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:48PM (#7593288)
      I went to a real engineering school to learn Computer Engineering (a 4 year EEE + CS program), and every time I see a company create a certification program that takes less than a month to become an "engineer", well... it makes me cringe.

      That's funny, I get the same feeling when I hear people claim that their 4 year degree makes them an engineer. Last I checked you need to know the math and also be able to apply it. (It's that last part that university cannot teach.)

    • Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:49PM (#7593291) Homepage Journal
      The problem, IMO, is that people want the word "engineer" to mean all sorts of things it shouldn't. My job title is Software Engineer -- but it shouldn't be; it should be Programmer, or Developer, because IMO what I do isn't engineering at all. (What I really do, when you get right down to it, is applied math.) To me, the crucial distinction is, or ought to be, that an engineer makes actual physical objects, whether those objects are airplanes (AE), buildings (CE), cars (ME), or circuits (EE). The expansion of "engineering" into things that have no physical existence, such as software, goes hand-in-hand with other abuses of the language such as calling widgets on a Web page "technologies." I'll barely buy "network engineer," since a large part of setting up a network is determining its physical layout. But people who maintain networks others have set up aren't engineers; they're mechanics.
      • To me, engineering implies understanding. Anyone who's built houses (as part of a crew) for a while and can read the building code can build a house which will meet code and stand up. An engineer can build a house which resists sagging, doesn't creak in the wind, and stands up through earthquakes that level the neighbors even though they are perfectly sturdy houses. Most anyone can learn to do at least rudimentary programming with lots of rules (VB, for example) but a software engineer makes every decision

    • Re:Fake "engineer" certs should not be legal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gregmac ( 629064 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:51PM (#7593297) Homepage
      I know the difference between a real engineer and a fake one, but I'm not so sure the average guy on the street understands the distinction.

      Well, it's also something that's potentially harmful. There is a reason that universities need to be accredited to offer engineering degrees, and that once you become a professional engineer (PEng) you can lose that license if you don't do your job properly.

      A lot of people don't realize that calling yourself an 'engineer' carries the same sort of weight and responsibility as calling yourself a doctor or a lawyer. You have people's lives in your hands (and often on a bigger scale than doctors - when doctors screw up, one patient dies.. when engineers screw up, bridges fall down and many people die). You can have your engineering license revoked for bad pratice. And just like doctors and lawyers, you can get in a lot of trouble for praticing engineering without a license.

      I've met a lot of MCSE's that couldn't solve their way out of a cardboard box, and yet, they have the word 'engineer' in their title. And these are the people designing and implementing often mission-critical systems that our society depends on.

      The PEO [peo.on.ca] brought Microsoft Canada to court over this issue, and although Microsoft will still use the MSCE title, they (and people holding the title) are only allowed to use the acronym MSCE or full title, and are not allowed to call themselves simply 'engineers'. A lot more information on this can be found at PEO's Software Engineering [peo.on.ca] site.

      Basically, Microsoft is not willing to change the title (citing it would cost them too much, and they like the branding it has), and want to continue using the term 'engineer'. The CCPE [www.ccpe.ca] and the various provincal bodies (PEO [peo.on.ca], APEGGA [apegga.org], etc) are now talking enforcement, saying anyone that misrepresents themselves is facing $50,000 fines.

      • A lot of people don't realize that calling yourself an 'engineer' carries the same sort of weight and responsibility as calling yourself a doctor or a lawyer.

        In Italy you have to "Ingeniere" before the name of engineers just like you add "Dottore" to the names of people with a PhD. In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.
        • In many european countries the schools have to be granted the right to deliver engineer diplomas by a governmental commission.

          It's the same in Canada: well, in the province of Ontario, anyway. Universities giving out engineering degrees must satisfy a fairly rigid set of criteria imposed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and no one is allowed to use the word "Engineer" otherwise.

          Engineers can even act as the guarantor on a passport.
    • yes, they should be called "technicians" and "operators".....I've held the title of "software engineer" and "systems engineer" before, but that's baloney. I've also held real engineering jobs & have degree in "engineering physics", and that's a whole different world altogether.
    • "I also suspect people in hiring positions give a lot more weight to a certification that pretends to be an engineering degree than they really should."

      Undoubtedly true, but equally true is that companies give a lot more weight to a degree than they should period. Generally if you take out the courses that aren't really needed for doing the job you cut down that 4yrs to 3yrs, if you reprepare the material to be absorbed by the highest common denominator instead of the lowest, you chop it down to about 3-6

  • Bleh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:15PM (#7593150)
    Oh great. Another reason for non-engineers to call themselves engineers.

  • How long does it last? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iamsure ( 66666 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:25PM (#7593185) Homepage
    The Novell page doesnt seem to reference how long the cert is good for - even in the faq..

    Anyone know?

  • Good morning (Score:5, Informative)

    by haraldm ( 643017 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:33PM (#7593219)
    This has been available for at least 6 months now [matrixlist.com]. Sleep well.

  • This is not new (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voideng ( 656574 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:47PM (#7593281)
    Novell mentioned it was comming in '02 and announced it at Brain Share '03.

  • Certifications are overrated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:55PM (#7593324) Homepage
    The only reason to have a certification is to be able to prove to someone who doesn't have a clue about computers that you might know what you're doing, ie: it's something to flash the HR lepton who has concocted a bunch of hiring "qualifications" that they themselves don't understand. I've held an MCSE for nearly 5 years now and I still have yet to be asked to produce it. I'm just glad somebody else paid for it. A certification is no replacement for the problem solving skills that only experience can teach you, but try telling that to some HR drone. That's one of the reasons I decided to go the self-employed route. For some weird reason, it's a hell of a lot easier to bid a support contract for a company than it is to get hired by them, even though you may be doing the exact same thing for more money!

    • A certification is no replacement for the problem solving skills that only experience can teach you

      Obviously not, it is supposed to be an indication that you have these skills. Of course, a lot of existing certifications are not (but academic grades may be even worse in that regard), but you don't expect HR drones to test potential employees under real-world conditions, do you? They just cannot do that, they'd have to simulate things like your familiarity with the network, your frustration level after wor

    • Re:Certifications are overrated (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gr8fulnded ( 254977 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @04:29PM (#7594099)
      I suppose it depends where you work. I could care less about fancy titles myself, but like you said, it gives HR the warm and fuzzies. However, dollars give me the warm an fuzzies and for whatever reason, the gov't loves to pay for certs (I'm a gov't contractor).

      Yeah, I'm solaris 8 certed. Woopdeefuckingdoo. I was bored and the testing center was there. For $300 out of my pocket (reimbursed by my company), I can make an extra 5k a year. You do the math.

  • This has nothing to do with SuSE (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The CLE program was well underway long before SuSE was acquired, the certification is to test candidates knowledge of running Novell services for linux (which is now in beta testing, and we here are a beta site). As you probably know by Netware 7.0 Novell has the intention to offer all services on either the netware kernel or linux kernel. That is what this certification is about, not SuSE, please get the facts straight.

  • First job post! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In other news, dice.com reported the first job posting for a Novell Certified Linux Engineer! The drawback is that it requires 3+ years as a NCLE.


    Hmmm. Any old timers remember the 60's spy show "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."? Now we have the man from N.C.L.E. It would be quite fitting to show up to work in a Tuxedo.

  • Three Anecdotes - All True (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick.C ( 626083 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @04:29PM (#7594101)
    I did the NT 4.0 MCSE thing back in '98 at the request of my former employer (to make me a more marketable consultant).

    - One of the students in a class had a photographic memory. He didn't understand why everyone didn't just read the book and go take the exam while the book was still in short-term memory.

    - The Sr. VP where I work as a mainframe sysprog asked me if I knew anyone who was good at Windows debugging. I told him I knew some MCSE types. He said that if his IT department were a karate dojo, "MCSE" would be equivalent to "white belt" (rank beginner).

    - An instructor in an SQL Server class related the tale about a forklift operator who got laid off. He kept seeing job ads for "MCDBA" and asked around to find out what that meant. He didn't have the cash to actually take the courses but he bought the books and passed the exam (through luck, I guess) on the 14th attempt. He landed a job making $160K per year and kept it for six months before they realized he didn't know beans. He ended up $80K richer, though.

    • $160K per year!!!????? And I've been wasting my life in the Unix/Linux/World for 13 years? Dang, go Microsoft!!!! I'll be Bill Gates ass-rachet!!! Seriously, I've found salaries like that to be very much the exception to the rule - most DBA's I know make less than half of that.
  • Just the other day, a couple of friends were asking what Novell was good for. Now we know...

    sort of.

  • Gentoo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Trejkaz ( 615352 )
    So when do we get Gentoo Certified Linux Zealot?

  • Why oh why PDF formatted docs? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crush ( 19364 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @05:23PM (#7594417)

    The only way to get more information on this topic from the SuSE website is to download the PDF formatted docs.

    I appreciate the presentation-control aspects that PDF gives to documents, but I don't think that it's too much to ask that a simple webpage with text information on it be provided as an alternative. I realize this is slightly OT, but in the slim hope that some SuSE webmaster/PR people are reading the thread: please some new-fashioned good ol' XHTML would do nicely instead. Thanks.

  • I hope theyre really tough (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @09:10PM (#7595614) Homepage
    I hope those certs dont just become anoter set of certs you can have after 3 weeks of exam crams. They should be able to seperate the boys from the men the way CCIE does.

    I think we desperately need tough Linux certs to aim for, certs which will in time be respected enough to be of greater weight than the college degrees. Right now theres no standard way for a company to look for a highly skilled linux technician who can be creative, knowledgeable and original in solving problems. They just go for students from the best universities who have taken lots of java pascal and ada courses.

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Close