Re: [vox] the windows XP talk at UCD
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] the windows XP talk at UCD
On Fri, 16 November 2001, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In my experience, yes. Sorry to say that, but it does not cover all cases of course and was a generalization as I knew a few good MCSE's, but they also had other experience, or just experience. The worst were those paper MCSE's with no experience.
This is why I hate generalazations.
> > That's like saying, "Oh, he had a car accident? He must have had a drivers license."
> No, now you are saying, "You need an MCSE to operate computers legally".
> Obviously everyone needs a license to legally drive, but not have an MCSE to legally operate a computer.
Your implication was all mcse's don't know computer technology. My example was meant to convey that just because you have a drivers license doesn't mean you are a good driver. It also does not mean you are a bad driver. Nor does it mean that when the car gets a flat tire, it is the fault of the driver or the car.
> Exactly, but the vast majority of MCSE's I met proffessionaly were bad. A few
> good ones who had to take the exam as their company needed people with these
> qualifications on paper. And if you think that all the Linux qualifications
> are any better thus far they are not.
The vast majority of paper MCSE's I meet that are not experianced are unemployed, or straight desktop techs. Others have been through job retraining at vastly overpriced classes. I don't actually know any paper MCSE's currently, which is odd. Studying for certs is an excellent way to learn a product or technology as long as it is not spoon fed to you and you learn it, but it is not a substitute for experiance.
> > Dude, if you are going to denigrate a person because he was a) an idiot, b)
> > unprepared, c)setup or d)just along for the ride, then do so individually,
> > not as a stereotypical group, 'cause everyone knows what raving lunatics
> > Linux fans are, just look at the hate mail this will probably generate....
> > right?
> > -sp
> I am denigrating the fact that they had billed this as a tech talk, yet none
> had been prepared to answer any technical question. If you're going to go to
> a University you should expect to get asked some very deep questions. Maybe
> they didn't care for these to be answered, which then becomes a haven for
> conspiracy theories, perhaps they are trying to hide something?
> You have no reason to get so upset over this, I could easily say "most
> MCSE's" next time though to cover that group. I am sure we're going to get
> "paper Red Hats", lets hope they remain a minority.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with whether he is/was an MCSE. Did he claim to be one, or is this soemthing you introduced into the equation? IF he said he was one, then he is up to being nailed as an individual who isn't doing his homework.
I like Linux, but I know more about MS stuff and that stuff pays my mortgage. :) I was bummed out that I couldn't go, I was interested in some of the aspects of XP I had read about. BUT, in my experiance most MS TechTalks are merely thinly veiled PowerPoint marketing deals. At least the evening free ones are. I was still interested in the rebuttals to LUGOD's challenges.
Not upset, annoyed :). What I get annoyed with is when critisisms introduce extraneous facts that are not in evidence. From Peter's review, they had more then enough reason to get slammed for their lack of preparation and misleading presentation title, but nowhere in any of the threads did I read that anyone introduced themselves as an MCSE (If I missed it, then I owe you an apology, but you said 'probably').
Remember that MS is not always as precise with the facts as they should be, but that does not mean that folks who like Linux need to bring impresician to support their position either.
(stupid web mail with no spell checker! :)