If you have an IT degree, why take certs?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I don't quite understand the question about MS server errors.

However, I will answer what I assume you're saying. Yes, this a problem created by MS. They do not teach fundamentals. They teach point and click, even in their most advanced administration certs.

Your second paragraph makes my point too. The Linux guys learn the fundamentals. It's not optional with them. It is not only their nature, it is required to understand a Linux system. That's why they can adapt to multiple OSs with much more ease than a MS guy can. The MSCE guys, when they see learning protocols, underlying principles, etc... as a "lust" for knowledge, will never really gain the level of skill it takes to administer anything but a MS OS, or move beyond the gui.

It is a fundamental difference in thinking.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

It all boils down to this question: do you want to pass an exam, or do you want to be an effective tech? They should want to be a good tech, but sadly, most just want to pass the exam. That's the problem.

The good thing is... the difference becomes clear on the job.

 

I think we are on 2 different wavelengths here completely, but my meaning of the server error example was that if its a problem with the windows os, then you use the windows os's built in tools to diagnose and fix the issue, if it was a problem with hardware, youd either use software that comes with the server (i used raid as a quick example) or youd move into the hardware utilities such as the BIOS, im sure this is the same with linux, debian and whatever software is going (im sure editing a text file will not help with a faulty drive for instance, will probably work around it while you replace the hardware physically but i digress).

As for the protocols section, My understanding of protocols, is mostly through the networking side of things, so if you are referring to proctocols whithin an OS then id imagine you refering to the internal communications to the kernel, and how that interacts with hardware resources and applications.

Or i may be miles off lol

Either way, i havent said that certs are the only method anyone should use while learning, but to employers they show willingness to learn, and knowledge of the product in question

I think the point is it should be very hard for someone to study, either certs or for uni, and not learn anything.

Supplement this with experience, in both cases, and then you build knowledge from there.

 

I just pointed this out as everyone that was in the same program I was took that point of view. I also see this point of view expressed many times on this site. Like I said earlier, I doubt very much whether more than just a very small percentage of people studying for an MCSE study outside of the books designed to teach a person to pass the tests. That's something no self-respecting Linux guy would ever think of doing. First we know we could never function in Linux that way, and second it's just not our nature accept surface knowledge.

There really is a very fundamental difference in thinking between most MS-oriented techs and most *nix-oriented techs. The *nix-oriented techs can move between OSs much more easily than a MS-oriented tech because of it too. They just have a far better understanding of how computers work.

I'm not saying there aren't MS techs who are knowledgeable. I'm saying though that there is a real cultural divide along the lines of learning and what is accepted as acceptable levels of knowledge of fundamentals. The reason I know you guys understand this is because nobody disputes that most MCSEs use nothing but exam-related books to study from. I'm a major rarity for someone studying for an MCSE. I'm not a rarity in the *nix world at all. I'm the norm, or even a little less than the norm on the learning level.

 

In regards to what? linux+.

Most people learn what they need to know to either do there job or pass an exam. If a tech with mcse comes up against something that wasnt in the book surely they would learn/explore what they need to do to complete there job.


Dont really understand your thinking.

 

I second that. ffreeloader, you are making some sweeping statements with regard to the type of person that is currently studying for certs or working in a Windows based environment. It sounds like you are saying *nix techs know more about computers and are better than Windows techs, because you all read loads of books and stuff. There are way too many variables here to make such statements.

 

You guys are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying there aren't good MS techs. I've even stated that explicitly, so I think part of each of you is looking to have a problem with me.

Take a look at my point from an earlier post. MS almost completely neglects teaching, in one of their premier certifications that is supposed to make the holder an "engineer", the teaching of their most powerful and flexible administration tools. Why? Ask yourselves that. Why focus on the gui 99.98% of the time when in real life troubleshooting is done at the command line level many, many times? When in fact the most powerful tools available are command line tools? Is that really teaching people to learn, to dig, to work outside the gui and become truly skillful? Not in the least. MS is teaching by example that you're supposed to use the gui, and the gui doesn't take any understanding of basic fundamentals to use. All it takes is knowing how and where to point-and-click your way through a task.

Here's an example. Configure a MS name server to resolve internal names and forward external names for resolution. Now, try doing that with Bind9. Which takes far more knowledge of DNS and how it works to configure the name server? But, which is far more flexible and gives you far more options to work with? Bind9 does. It simply requires far more understanding of the basic principles to get it working.

Now, if all you've ever worked on is a MS name server can you easily move to a Bind9 server and configure it? Not in the least. However, for the guy who cut his teeth on Bind9 configuring a MS name server is a piece of cake. Why? Because the MS name server requires far less knowledge to do a basic configuration.

Thus, the standards for acceptable knowledge for a system administrator in a MS environment and a *nix environment are much different. The MCSE who is technologically weaned in the MS environment is just going to be very uncomfortable in that *nix environment that takes away his mouse and requires him to learn scripting syntax and fundamental DNS protocol knowledge.

I've configured and done troubleshooting on both MS and Bind9 name servers. I know the differences in required knowledge. Do you? Can you argue from a point of experience that you are required to know as much in a MS environment as you are in a *nix environment?

 

Like i said before, if someone in that situation had to use bind9, they would learn it.

But i see where your coming from.

 

Well, that was just an example of the greater skill required to run a *nix environment.

But, on a practical level once you get it set up you rarely have to touch it. I've been running Bind9 now for the last 3 years in my home lab. Before that I ran a Win2K name server. I can tell you that I spent far more time troubleshooting and repairing that MS name server than I have the Bind9 name server. IOW's I've spent less time overall, even with the learning curve associated with Bind9, in administering it than I did with the MS name server. Plus the MS name server had its cache poisoned a couple of times which just drove me nuts trying to figure out what was going on the first time, and I had it configured so that it shouldn't have.

Not all things that are initially faster end up being less time consuming in the long run. Long term reliability must be factored into any equation.

 

I can understand ffreeloader’s point about the principles of DNS when setting up a server and Sparky’s point about the Linux tech who setup 9 domains. There are some major differences between the two environments, different ways of working and different skills required. It seems like people are trying to make a direct comparison, which just doesn’t do either side justice. Just because Windows has a GUI to configure things does not mean any fool can pitch up and setup a fully functional and secure DNS server. A level of skill and knowledge is required. Ok, so this is different knowledge to that required to setup a bind DNS server but no less valuable. This however does not mean one tech is better than the other, different knowledge, different skills, different environments. Linux is not the be all and end all. Its just different to Windows.

 

Like the others, I disagree with the sweeping statement that most Linux techs understand their stuff, while most Microsoft techs do not.

Freddy, Microsoft exams don't just focus on the GUI. I should know; I write items based on their exams.

And how does this makes the Microsoft tech less knowledgeable? Just because it's easier to configure? This isn't a BIND 9 exam, so they're not expected to be able to configure a BIND 9 server. You assume that Microsoft techs don't learn about DNS.

Further, the exam doesn't JUST teach how to configure a Microsoft DNS server... it might give a configuration (perhaps the GUI, perhaps no GUI), and it'll ask WHY something doesn't work. Usually, the answer deals less with the GUI and more with understanding the concepts of how DNS works. I think this is where you're assuming things that do not really exist on MS exams.

*nix and Microsoft are just different. You're required to know different things. That doesn't make the techs that work on them more or less intelligent, more or less knowledgeable, or more or less valuable.

 

I posted at the same time as you, saying the same thing.

 

Not greater. Just different.

Once *I* get Microsoft's DNS set up, I rarely have to touch it. What's your point? The only DNS problem I've had with Microsoft was when techs didn't know how to configure it (which, yes, also happens with Unix techs who don't know how to configure DNS). Fix the problem, and it doesn't happen again. Weird how that works, huh?

 

Exactly, and I agree, wholeheartedly. It simply shows that more than one of us are thinking the same thing. We're not just talkin' crazy.

 

Huh.. weird.. your statement is a utter nonsense.

Ping. Tracecert.. Pathping. NSLookup.. and a plethora of other TCP/IP connectivity tools, DCDIAG.. routing commands, all the commands in the recovery console. DNS command line tools.. ISA command line tools. To name but a few.

 

Here we go again. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop with all the straw men. I didn't say MCSE's couldn't learn. I said most wouldn't learn. Big difference. Why won't most MCSEs learn Linux? The answers to my posts on this page illustrate my point very well.

The responses have been, paraphrasing very loosely, along the lines of "well, I don't want to learn more than I have to". This starts with the MCSE. MS doesn't even teach their own most powerful, flexible, and useful, system management tools in their own certifications. Why? Answer this question, don't just dodge or duck it. I've brought this point up time after time and it's just been ignored. It's very relevant to my entire premise.

I'll also say this. Since I started using and learning Linux my computer skills in general have improved exponentially. I understand far more about how computer systems work overall than I ever learned going through what was supposed to teach me to be a MS "engineer". And, those of you that have known me for a while understand that I worked my way through my MCSE. I had a working lab and set up domains, working business environments. I understood what was going on. My MCSE was all hands-on. Yeah, my MS skills are getting rusty from not being used every day and it wouldn't take me long to hone them again if I chose to work in a MS environment, but I'm not going to do that.

 

When I went through the MCSE 2000 scenario I learned those tools, but not as a part of my MCSE. They touched on the command line backup and restore tool for AD extremely briefly, but that's the only tool they required a person to learn. Take a look at the Windows Server Resource kits and tell me why those advanced tools are not the core focus of an MCSE rather than the gui. Just about any monkey can point and click, but that doesn't hold true for the command line tools. You actually have to learn and understand what's going on there.

If you're supposed to be what the word "engineer" when you finish an MCSE then why the shallow depth to an MCSE? Yes, it's hard, but it's not nearly as in-depth as what an equivalent in the Unix world knows. And, no, it's not just different knowledge, it's a different level of knowledge. I say this after being in both worlds.