RE: [Sheflug] Training (was Re: Installation hangs during disk format)

["Dawson, Alan" <xxxxx [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Craig Andrews
>
>Even the oft ridiculed MCSE is nothing more than a bunch of questions,
>often 
>along the lines of:
>
>'If a user cannot log in the the PDC when others on the network can, do
>you:
>
>a) toggle the foogle switch
>b) enter a username
>c) check capslock
>d) do a wardance'
>
>Ok, so not EXACTLY like that, but specific enough to tell you _which
>button to 
>press_. This does not help the trainee learn why the problem occurred,
>or the 
>nature of SMB and NETBIOS (*shudder*) but the specifics of an
>implementation 
>(in Microsofts ideal world, THE implementation).
>

But MCSE's aren't about educating , there more a way of 'brainwashing',
sorry training, systems implementers and administrators into the way MS
would have you do things.  Though to be fair you could say they provide
examples of best practice in using purely MS tools.  I'm sure that its not
just MS, all the propriety solutions providers play the same game. Novell
does the same with its training. The CNE's I talk to don't understand tcp,
well at least not straight away - they don't have to, they're busy rolling
out NDS 6 with ipx!  I'm guess Oracle Certification is as lopsided as an
MCDBA.

What do people think of things like the LPI curricula? Do they provide good
examples of best practice?  The variety of different unices (i'm told) was
the making of NT in that whilst nobody argued about the superiority of unix
the variety within it made it difficult to transfer skills?  I think i see
this today still.  If i grab the source for an app and compile it is it
going to put its configuration info into /usr/local/app/etc or /etc  ?
Obviously if i was clever (or trained in the 'right way') I'd be able to
sort all this out.  Would LPI type courses help me here, or should I just
get used using the rpm's for my partcular distro, and let the bods at Red
Hat / UnitedLinux fix my problems ?


>Linux Training, then, is ambinguous. However, I would say that the best 
>training would be generic IT training. For instance, basic PC internals,
>
>describing the boot process, the BIOS, hardware interfaces, etc. Linux 
>exposes all this to the user in a pretty friendly form (certainly moreso
>than 
>Windows). Others could include Networking, wireless or otherwise, any
>type of 
>programming (Linux does them all, even GUI ones like KDevelop/Anjuta)
>and 
>basically any IT topic _not_ specific to an OS.

I'm sure Linux has the best implentation of tcp/ip (or at least
administrative interface to it) and all its surrounding issues , routing ,
filtering, etc.  Also the concept of being able to manage systems from a
command line is really radical - well to nt and novell bods! -  you can
practically do it from anywhere, given a telnet session and a net
connection.

>
>A good example of this is 'Operating Systems - Design and
>Implementation' by 
>Andrew S. Tanenbaum. It uses generic principles to describe things like 
>process scheduling, IDE controllers, terminal IO, etc. and uses Minix as
>a 
>specific example.

I read Tannenbaums ' Computer Networks ' .  Brilliant.  I may buy your
reccomndation

>As a personal anecdote, I learned more about diagnosing Windows NT boot 
>failures and system services by using and studying Linux than any of the
>
>books taught me, because they never taught me how a modern 32 bit
>operating 
>system functions on x86 hardware (there's a whole other kettle of
>fish!), 
>just what little information Microsoft was willing to part with.
>
>Just my £0.02
>

A great example of how a bit of perspective adds a whole lot of depth.  If
there is any one thing about Linux that gives it strength it is the
openness, you really get to see how the stuff is working (or not) and how it
grows through a couple of generations.

Alan Dawson


___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.