From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: Certification Program
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:52:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <C0pxL2.E5D@unix.portal.com>, kyma@shell.portal.com (Matt J Young) writes:
> 
> Network General has launched a program to certify network engineers via
> a certification test based upon existing network technology (Comm Week).
> The engineers would be certified from tests based upon products from
> existing vendors.
> 
> I cannot think of a more insidious program designed to stifle
> innovation.  The idea stinks of an effort to codify existing network
> architectures, preventing a more advanced form of distributed processing 
> to emerge.  HP is doing itself a dis-service by joining the program.
> 
> I have seen a lot of maneuvers in Silicon Valley, designed to protect
> technology, and all of these have led to a steady outflow of innovation
> from Silicon Valley to points elsewhere.  In all cases the CEOs of the
> local companies engage in high-jinks designed not to create new
> multi-vendor solutions for the customer, but to protect older
> technology or control the development of new.  This certification
> program falls into the later group.


I am not a fan of computer certification nonsens...whatever.  Still, I
think you're over reacting:

    - the "Certified Data Processing Professional" program has had
	little effect, except it is handy for screening resumes.  (If
	you see someone claiming "cdp" after their name, odds are that
	the candidate is less than stellar.  Yes, I'm sure there are
	exceptions, but after nearly 20 years since it was launched,
	I can think of no one who is both a strong, creative programmer
	and an admitted "cdp".)

    - "network engineer" in this case probably refers to people who
	will install networks, not people who develop and implement new
	kinds of networks.  (It jars me to hear people who do "network
	design" when their job is to figure out what to buy and how to
	plug it together, instead of creating new protocols or at least
	new implementations of old protocols.  However, that is my
	personal problem.)

    - Many people who install network hardware and software could use
	some training.  Many such people feel lost.  A program that
	would teach them standard meanings for the buzzwords and give
	them confidence to try things would be good.

    - The vast majority of the people who do "network design" have no
	business even considering the latest fad.  A program that
	reduces the mob rushes to the newest, steaming piles of
	technology would do everyone a lot of good, including those of
	us producing the piles.

    - Many "network designers" get much or most of their "knowledge"
	from reading advertisements and so called articles in the trade
	press and from salescritters.  A certification program might
	not start out much better (e.g. it might be a strain for
	Network General to be accurate about competing boxes).  Their
	good name will rest upon the accuracy of their instruction, and
	their instructors will hear about their mistakes and improve.
	That is not what happens with the blarney in the trade press or
	from salescritters.  Well, sales blarney is continuously
	improved, but accuracy is not the main criterion.

    - The people who develop new networks are not likely to be interested
	in the Network General program.  They won't be confused if it
	fails to mention what they are working on.

    - To attract customers (i.e. students), the Network General program 
	will have to be "sexy".  It will have to mention recent new
	network stuff.  It seems unlikely to stifle the popularity of
	anything worthwhile, if only because of the legal dangers.
	(They could be sued by their customers as well as companies
	pushing new stuff).


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay