On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:07:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 10:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:43:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 
>>> And doesn't everyone outside of academia know that the exam system
>>> sucks? Now, the education system "teaches" to pass exams not to
>>> educate.
>>
>> Not always, but usually in academia it's been my experience that that's
>> true.  In uni, most exams are not vetted as well as a certification
>> exam,
>> and the professors/teachers aren't trained in psychometric analysis,
>> item analysis, or how even really how to write good questions that
>> measure learning effectively.
>>
>>
> Arrrg!<Runs away wrapping his arms about his head.>  :-P

I sometimes surprise myself with stuff like this. ;)

>>> A vicious circle that dilutes any benefit that being able to read
>>> without moving your lips, gives.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> ??? I am being serious. Well half serious, anyway. ;-)

Well, then maybe that should be "LC" ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/03/2013 01:54 PM, scott wrote:
> The exam would be a more realistic and useful test then if it simply
> gave you a real linux prompt and timed how long it took you to get the
> correct answers to do what it wants. The pass rate would then be on how
> long it took you to get all the answers.

Don't forget that it's not just about being able to /write/ commands to 
do stuff; you probably need to be able to /read/ this stuff as well. ;-)

> Knowing where and how to find
> stuff efficiently is far more important than actually knowing it
> (because you could never hope to know even a tiny fraction of all the
> information you have access to). As stated already the stuff you use
> frequently you will remember anyway.

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/03/2013 04:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:59:14 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Unix commands and their switches follow no reason or rhyme
>
> Sometimes it certainly appears that way.  In this instance, I think it's
> a case of "-r" and "-R" were already used as a secondary option for the
> query parameter, and 'e' is the next letter in "remove".  -U was already
> used for "upgrade".

Like I said, half the text-processing commands let you specify how many 
bytes to process using -b, and half call it -c. No reason, they just do.

But then again, we're not talking about a coherently designed system, 
we're talking about a random collection of tools and utilities 
independently developed by unrelated individuals over the course of 70+ 
years. Add in a few layers of backwards compatibility and YUCK! >_<

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:59:05 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 14/03/2013 04:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:59:14 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Unix commands and their switches follow no reason or rhyme
>>
>> Sometimes it certainly appears that way.  In this instance, I think
>> it's a case of "-r" and "-R" were already used as a secondary option
>> for the query parameter, and 'e' is the next letter in "remove".  -U
>> was already used for "upgrade".
> 
> Like I said, half the text-processing commands let you specify how many
> bytes to process using -b, and half call it -c. No reason, they just do.

"b" = Bytes
"c" - Characters

Developer's choice/prerogative. :)

> But then again, we're not talking about a coherently designed system,
> we're talking about a random collection of tools and utilities
> independently developed by unrelated individuals over the course of 70+
> years. Add in a few layers of backwards compatibility and YUCK! >_<

Try about 50 years.  UNIX came about in 1969.  Some of the development 
work obviously would've been before it was released.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Like I said, half the text-processing commands let you specify how many
>> bytes to process using -b, and half call it -c. No reason, they just do.
>
> "b" = Bytes
> "c" - Characters
>
> Developer's choice/prerogative. :)

Nice choice of "-" and "=" there. :-P

But yes, that's why the names. Because, obviously 1 character = 1 byte. 
Oh, wait...

And hey, even if that were true, it's *still* an inconsistent naming of 
command switches. Some commands expect -c and some expect -b, and you 
just have to memorise which is which. (A tiny few commands accept BOTH, 
and actually do the correct thing with multi-byte characters... But not 
very many!)

>> But then again, we're not talking about a coherently designed system,
>> we're talking about a random collection of tools and utilities
>> independently developed by unrelated individuals over the course of 70+
>> years. Add in a few layers of backwards compatibility and YUCK!>_<
>
> Try about 50 years.  UNIX came about in 1969.  Some of the development
> work obviously would've been before it was released.

That's a bit before my time. But the main point still stands - it's a 
collection of tools independently developed by mostly unrelated 
individuals over a period of several decades. There never was any 
overarching design plan.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:42:39 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Nice choice of "-" and "=" there. :-P

Typo. ;)

> But yes, that's why the names. Because, obviously 1 character = 1 byte.
> Oh, wait...

When you're dealing with ASCII (and EBCDIC, IIRC), that is most certainly 
true.

> And hey, even if that were true, it's *still* an inconsistent naming of
> command switches. Some commands expect -c and some expect -b, and you
> just have to memorise which is which. (A tiny few commands accept BOTH,
> and actually do the correct thing with multi-byte characters... But not
> very many!)

Like I said, programmer's prerogative.

>>> But then again, we're not talking about a coherently designed system,
>>> we're talking about a random collection of tools and utilities
>>> independently developed by unrelated individuals over the course of
>>> 70+ years. Add in a few layers of backwards compatibility and YUCK!>_<
>>
>> Try about 50 years.  UNIX came about in 1969.  Some of the development
>> work obviously would've been before it was released.
> 
> That's a bit before my time. But the main point still stands - it's a
> collection of tools independently developed by mostly unrelated
> individuals over a period of several decades. There never was any
> overarching design plan.

There was for the underlying architecture, but yes, developers who wrote 
different tools didn't coordinate.  You sound surprised by that for some 
reason.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-03-14 09:54, scott a écrit :
>> Formulas can sometimes be derived from first principles if necessary.
>> (Provided you remember enough background around them.) Unix commands and
>> their switches follow no reason or rhyme. Much like the spelling of the
>> English language, the only solution is to memorise large chunks of data
>> and be able to recall it later. It's not so easy to do that for parts of
>> the syllabus that you don't actually need to use regularly...
>
> The exam would be a more realistic and useful test then if it simply
> gave you a real linux prompt and timed how long it took you to get the
> correct answers to do what it wants. The pass rate would then be on how
> long it took you to get all the answers. Knowing where and how to find
> stuff efficiently is far more important than actually knowing it
> (because you could never hope to know even a tiny fraction of all the
> information you have access to). As stated already the stuff you use
> frequently you will remember anyway.
>

Just like the CCIE lab test.
Day 1: Here's a pile of network gear*.  Here's a Visio diagram of a 
corporate network (with missing info, of course).  All the cables and 
all the manuals are over there on the shelf.  You have 8 hours.

Day 2: Guys, there, was a major incident on your network last night, the 
CIO has been screaming at your boss for the last half hour.  Fix it. 
You have 8 hours.

*Including some that's DOA, or whose firmware has been erased.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:01:28 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Just like the CCIE lab test.
> Day 1: Here's a pile of network gear*.  Here's a Visio diagram of a
> corporate network (with missing info, of course).  All the cables and
> all the manuals are over there on the shelf.  You have 8 hours.
> 
> Day 2: Guys, there, was a major incident on your network last night, the
> CIO has been screaming at your boss for the last half hour.  Fix it. You
> have 8 hours.
> 
> *Including some that's DOA, or whose firmware has been erased.

Which is a very good exam - one of the best in the IT industry, if not 
the best.

But it's also not something you'd do on an entry-level exam.  It's a 
fairly expensive exam to take, to administer, and requires a fair amount 
of setup to pull off.  If you fail, Cisco will charge you to review the 
results (you get the review fee back if the scoring was incorrect, 
however).

IT certification exams fall into two categories, generally:  Introductory 
and Advanced.

Introductory exams are almost /never/ practical exams (RedHat is the only 
exception to this that I'm aware of - and the guy who's in charge of 
their exam and certification programs has no interest in doing anything 
other than performance-based testing.  I've met him and he and I talked 
at length about it).  The LPIC-1 is an introductory exam.  The purpose of 
an exam at this level is to define a minimally-qualified entry level 
candidate - a first level admin, or similar.  Those certifications tend 
to be marketing fodder for the exam sponsors (Cisco, SUSE, RedHat, etc).  

They have to measure a valid candidate in order to have some validity, 
but the purpose is to build a large following of candidates who have 
familiarity with the product(s) the exams are about.

The benefit shifts when you get to more advanced exams.  Those exams are 
targeted at a smaller audience - and if (IMHO) the sponsor is doing their 
breakdown properly, the advanced exams are /not/ revenue-generating.  At 
best, they should break even.  (If you're making an "advanced" mass-
market certification exam, you don't understand the economics of 
certification programs, again IMHO).  The purpose of an advanced 
certification program is to have a small number of people (relatively 
speaking) who have advanced skills and knowledge - the "creme de la 
creme" of the mass-market certification audience are the ones who will 
take it, and they should be difficult to pass (like the CCIE).

The benefit to the candidate of a properly defined advanced certification 
is significant - demonstrably higher pay, higher regard/recognition, and 
higher demand for their skills.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-03-17 00:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :

> Introductory exams are almost /never/ practical exams (RedHat is the only
> exception to this that I'm aware of - and the guy who's in charge of
> their exam and certification programs has no interest in doing anything
> other than performance-based testing.  I've met him and he and I talked
> at length about it).  The LPIC-1 is an introductory exam.  The purpose of
> an exam at this level is to define a minimally-qualified entry level
> candidate - a first level admin, or similar.  Those certifications tend
> to be marketing fodder for the exam sponsors (Cisco, SUSE, RedHat, etc).
>

Unless I'm mistaken, the CCNA (Introductory Cisco Cert) has some amount 
of simulated hands-on, now.  When I took it, it was just multiple choice 
answers, inlcuding sections where you had a list of 100 commands, and 
you needed to pick the one that applied to each of the 20 questions in 
that section, but that was before the days of Flash and Java, so 
simulators were not that common.

> They have to measure a valid candidate in order to have some validity,
> but the purpose is to build a large following of candidates who have
> familiarity with the product(s) the exams are about.

Agreed. their as much a sales pitch as a technical certification.  A kid 
just out of school who got her MiCkey mouSE certification will probably 
not recommend Solaris as her new employer's server platform.

>
> The benefit shifts when you get to more advanced exams.  Those exams are
> targeted at a smaller audience - and if (IMHO) the sponsor is doing their
> breakdown properly, the advanced exams are /not/ revenue-generating.

They may not be revenue-generating, but they are also expense-cutting. 
For example, if a company has a certain number of CCIEs on staff (I 
think it's 4), they get a huge deal on maintenance contracts, because 
Cisco assumes they won't be calling TAC twice a week for silly stuff.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:12:44 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2013-03-17 00:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> 
>> Introductory exams are almost /never/ practical exams (RedHat is the
>> only exception to this that I'm aware of - and the guy who's in charge
>> of their exam and certification programs has no interest in doing
>> anything other than performance-based testing.  I've met him and he and
>> I talked at length about it).  The LPIC-1 is an introductory exam.  The
>> purpose of an exam at this level is to define a minimally-qualified
>> entry level candidate - a first level admin, or similar.  Those
>> certifications tend to be marketing fodder for the exam sponsors
>> (Cisco, SUSE, RedHat, etc).
>>
>>
> Unless I'm mistaken, the CCNA (Introductory Cisco Cert) has some amount
> of simulated hands-on, now.  When I took it, it was just multiple choice
> answers, inlcuding sections where you had a list of 100 commands, and
> you needed to pick the one that applied to each of the 20 questions in
> that section, but that was before the days of Flash and Java, so
> simulators were not that common.

Simulation was up-and-coming, I know there's a company in China that does 
a lot of the simulation construction for Citrix, and the test drivers 
used in testing centers are better able to handle that type of hands-on 
because there are limited possibilities.

The way that's actually done is interesting, because the test developers 
actively seek out unqualified candidates during development to determine 
possible answers that someone who doesn't know the material might try.

>> They have to measure a valid candidate in order to have some validity,
>> but the purpose is to build a large following of candidates who have
>> familiarity with the product(s) the exams are about.
> 
> Agreed. their as much a sales pitch as a technical certification.  A kid
> just out of school who got her MiCkey mouSE certification will probably
> not recommend Solaris as her new employer's server platform.

I was thinking along the lines of being able to say "we've got x 
certified individuals", but yes, it is something used to build customer 
loyalty as well, for customers who invest in the courses and exams - 
there's a training investment, so the customer wants to get a positive 
return out of that investment.  The interesting thing is that that's 
something that can actually be measured (in broad terms) by the exam 
sponsor, and some sponsors do make claims like "you'll recoup the 
training expense in 3 months" with a fair degree of certainty.

It requires a fair amount of course eval data to be able to do so - and 
not just an eval at the end of the course, but a follow-up eval 6 months 
after the course.

>> The benefit shifts when you get to more advanced exams.  Those exams
>> are targeted at a smaller audience - and if (IMHO) the sponsor is doing
>> their breakdown properly, the advanced exams are /not/
>> revenue-generating.
> 
> They may not be revenue-generating, but they are also expense-cutting.
> For example, if a company has a certain number of CCIEs on staff (I
> think it's 4), they get a huge deal on maintenance contracts, because
> Cisco assumes they won't be calling TAC twice a week for silly stuff.

Oh, yes, absolutely.  The first IT certification exam - the Certified 
NetWare Engineer - was originally only going to be granted to a fixed 
number of candidates who worked for partners - the purpose was to allow 
the partners to be an extension of the product support organization, and 
too many certified candidates would have diluted that pool to the point 
that nobody made any money (actually, there's a similar problem in IT 
training centers today - many organizations have too many training 
partners to meet the demand, and the end result is that classes get 
canceled not because there isn't demand, but because there isn't demand 
to fill the course - say - the 6 times a week it's being held at 
different training centers in an area.  Well, that and the face of 
training has changed to the point that most people won't sit a 5-day 
class any more).

Jim

Post a reply to this message