Network Warrior 228
Fatty writes "Entry level certifications such as the Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) have become the source of many jokes to people in the industry, largely because of the seemingly inept people that proudly display their certifications. This is made worse by the volume of books geared only to get people through the exam. Network Warrior bills itself as the exact opposite — if the subtitle is to be believed it contains "Everything You Need to Know That Wasn't on the CCNA Exam". With everything from the architecture of the 6500 to layers 8 and 9 of the OSI model (politics and money), it does a pretty good job." Read below for the rest of Sean's views on this book.
| Network Warrior: Everything You Need to Know That Wasn't on the CCNA Exam | |
| author | Gary A. Donahue |
| pages | 598 |
| publisher | O'Reilly |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Sean Walberg |
| ISBN | 9780596101510 |
| summary | A practical look at what you really need to know to run a Cisco network |
The CCNA exam is supposed to test a candidate's understanding of networking fundamentals. Over the years it has expanded to include more advanced material, and now covers networking theory, switching (including spanning tree and VLANs), and some of the intermediate routing protocols such as EIGRP and OSPF. Despite the breadth of content the exam doesn't (and can't) cover things that many network folk take for granted, even things like what the "demarc" is (short for demarcation point, the the place where the carrier's responsibility ends and yours begins). While the exam's topic list is broad, the level of detail is shallow in most places. Someone may study spanning tree enough for the exam, but have no clue where to place their root bridge when they get into the real world.
It is for this reason that I found Network Warrior to be helpful. It's goal is to point out both the technical areas in which the CCNA falls short, and to teach the reader the non-Cisco aspects of running a network.
Technically I found this book quite sound. There were a few things one might disagree with but nothing that detracted from the rest of the book. In several spots the author was keen to point out behaviors that deviated from the documents, such as in Quality of Service (QoS) and in upgrading certain modules in the 6500 chassis. He also illustrated where the theoretical concepts on network design fall short in the real world.
Routing and switching takes up the first third of the book. The switching section is largely a review of the CCNA material with some notable exceptions. First and foremost is a chapter exclusively on autonegotiation. The CCNA exam may only discuss how to set a port to a fixed speed, but anyone who has worked with a network for more than a few weeks will have run into a speed or duplex mismatch. This chapter explains some of the history behind Ethernet and its relevance to autonegotiation, explains how it works, how it fails, and how to recognize the problem, and finally offers advice on when and where to use autonegotiation.
The second major deviation from the CCNA switching syllabus is in depth coverage of Etherchannel and spanning tree (STP) Both of these protocols are integral parts of network design and operation, but the exam barely touches Etherchannel and doesn't get into the complexities of spanning tree (though this changes with each iteration of the exam.) Network Warrior provides techniques and a demonstration of finding a layer 2 loop. Surprisingly though, there is only mention of standard 802.1d legacy spanning tree and some Cisco extensions such as Per VLAN STP and backbone fast, and no mention of the newer standardized enhancements of 802.1s/w (rapid spanning tree and multiple spanning tree) which have been in common use and have been put on the latest version of the exam (released after this book went to press)
The third deviation is the inclusion of CatOS commands instead of just IOS like the exam. As the author repeatedly points out, CatOS is in use on many 6500 chassis and is still in active development, so there is no reason not to know it. This theme continues throughout the book whenever the 6500 is used as an example, which is often.
The routing chapters are full of new material. The sections on the routing protocols themselves are short and don't add much beyond what the CCNA certification teaches. Redistribution and route-maps, however, are well explained. These two technologies which can be used separately or together can be found on almost any network and are very complex. I thought these sections were well done, as they gave enough details to be practical without getting down into all the different scenarios. Tunnels make an appearance in these chapters, which themselves aren't very complex, but aren't a part of the CCNA blueprint.
At this point, roughly page 180 of 550, the rest of the material isn't found in the CCNA blueprint.
Part 3 of the book is all about multilayer switching, specifically the 3750 and 6500 platforms. In particular the description of the 6500 architecture is much more succinct that can be found by searching on Cisco.com. There is an in depth explanation of how the various backplanes on the chassis works, which leads to an explanation of how to determine which cards are slowing down your switch.
I think the hidden gem of the book is part 4, though, which is all about telecom. In these chapters are an explanation of how carriers operate and how to speak the lingo of telecom techs. Even though networks are moving to Ethernet based services, traditional DS1, DS3, ATM, and frame-relay networks are still commonplace. The book has a solid explanation of how TDM based circuits actually work, the various options available to you, and how to properly order and troubleshoot them. I think back to when I was getting started in this field, and dealing with carriers was difficult.
Quality of Service, the features that let you guarantee and limit bandwidth to different types of traffic, have a section in this book too. The book largely focuses on the simple weighted-fair queuing (WFQ) and the current class-based WFQ with low latency queuing for voice. Configuration instructions can be found on Cisco's site easily enough, but Network Warrior delves into some of the behavioral aspects the documents shy away from such as when the queuing mechanisms actually get used. There is also a solid look at how to make sure the QoS is working as intended.
In the middle of all of this are chapters on the firewall and load balancing modules for the 6500, the PIX firewall, and IOS based load balancing. For someone with an ecommerce slant these might prove helpful, but given that these topics are books in themselves, it's hard to do them justice in a few chapters.
The last part of the book is on network design, which encompasses not only the steps needed to build a network, but also planning IP address allocations and how to pitch your ideas to management. Again, the book is not trying to be the definitive text on the subject, but it manages to impart a few words of wisdom, especially the so-called "GAD's Maxims", and "How not to be a computer jerk".
Well thought out examples were plentiful, along with anecdotes from the author, usually showing the consequences of doing things wrong. The illustrations did a great job of conveying the point at hand. Even though I've been doing this stuff for a while I learned several time saving techniques that I've already been able to put to use.
This is a great book for people just getting into the industry, with their CCNA or without. It offers practical advice rather than dry textbook like explanations which is a welcome change. Even those with a few years of experience under their belt will be happy reading through Network Warrior.
Sean Walberg is a network engineer and author living in Winnipeg, Canada.
You can purchase Network Warrior from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
What's with the militant terminology? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Pathetic isn't it? Here are other examples: (Score:2)
We compensate for our lives being so pathetic and boring by using all kinds of action/adventure expressions.
I wish I could remember that dilbert quote. Something like: "This day memos will be writen, messages will be faxed, and files will
I'm CCNA! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm CCNA! (Score:4, Funny)
OSI is the Office of Special Investigations. Whenever there's an illegal operation, they're the ones who come and investigate. Their arch-rival agency is the DRM, Digital Rights Mafia. Constant turf battles. Oh, and they're getting their own show on ABC this fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, how long until we get a Brock Samson reference?
Re: (Score:2)
The 6500 is a popular processor architecture made by MOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I have FAR more experience with MOS Technology than Cisco. I don't know if that's sad or not.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm CCNA! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You only need wood routers if you're serving up pr0n.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, in TCP/IP, there's only one layer above the transport layer, which makes OSI layers 5, 6, and 7 all the same. I suppose you could argue that layer 6 never really existed anyway, but that's neither here nor there.
Similarly while there's a technical distinction between layers 1 and 2, in common practice they are too in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interview Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
To my surprise, every single one of their obscure, imaginary-world answers were straight from sample MCSE tests. And after 10 more years working in a mixed environment, those questions still don't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Then count yourself lucky.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a very good point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely very important to figure out who your boss is going to be (remember sometimes the boss might be "exiting soon"), and what sort of person the boss is.
Might also want to ask what the "staff turnover" is for the department you are joining.
Re:Interview Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
I just got lucky on the obscure questions they asked, they actually picked something that it was possible to come across in the real world (like, what command do you use to change a NT server to NT workstation?)
However I could swear I lost ability when i got my MCSE; so much of the stuff they test for is Microsoft "truthiness" that it causes confusion when you come across similar circumstances in the real world; if you are working with or for people who are Microsoft trained, you have to find some way to spin the real solutions so that it doesn't violate MS canon law.
Never did get my CNE; that was my next step until I decided to retire instead (I couldn't get a job doing anything fun, due to age barrier, my lack of desire to be management & everyone thinking I wouldn't be happy taking a pay & power cut from my previous job).
Re:Interview Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The reality is that certification and exam materials are viewed by companies predominantly from the perspective of product revenue assurance. This is considered even more important than actually having revenue stream from certification fees and revenue from the courses themselves. As a result courses and exams are designed to indoctrinate, brainwash and secure future custom. They have nothing to do with qualification, knowledge or abil
Re: (Score:2)
That's way too harsh, for the RHCE anyway. While I wouldn't hire someone just because they got an RHCE, I would certainly not hire someone if they failed it (as the only people I've seen who failed it were clueless in real life).
Some of that might be due to the significant portion of the RHCE that is practical "this is broken fix it" or "this box needs to X, Y and Z ... make it happen".
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if:
1) You personally paid for it and wanted it
2) You thought it was a good idea to put it on your CV.
CCIE is still ok I guess.
Re:Interview Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the point argued back and forth on Slashdot. The anti-cert people say that there's little value in a cert that can be crammed for, a cert that doesn't really certify that the holder knows what he's doing. There are plenty of people with fancy certs on the wall who don't know what they're doing, just like there's plenty of people with no certs who are shit hot at what they do. The pro-cert people say that the certs serve as a measuring stick for non-techs who are looking to hire techs, a way of making sure that a candidate has a minimum level of experience before putting them through a serious evaluation. There's also the arrogance of geeks who think they don't need to bone up on theory and there's nothing more dangerous than the problems caused by what they don't know they don't know. The pro-certs people argue that the process forces you into a structured method of learning the topic.
I'm hip-deep in the process right now and I'd say it's a mixed bag. I think that the classroom instruction is good since it gives you a conversational environment to work through problems instead of just hitting the books on your own. The instructor, if he has real world experience, can also give you pointers you'll not find in the book. The bad part of all this is the testing. You can read the entire book, do the sample questions, and still be blindsided by the real test. The questions themselves are more designed to trip you up on stuff you know than really test you to see what you know. The technicalities and bullshittery of these questions is as bad as the worst tests endured in college.
From the cynical side, I've been told that the real scoop behind the certs is that companies like Microsoft want to make them seem like they have value so they want a high fail rate. If someone gets one, they should feel like they sweat blood. Now you can either make an exam tough with fair and exacting questions or you can use cheap tricks to fuck people up. Microsoft seems to prefer cheap tricks. And what's the worst thing that happens when someone fails? They pay to take the test again.
Re:Interview Questions (Score:4, Informative)
I'd almost buy that, but for a local vocational school that is notorious for "You pay, you pass" assembly-line certs. A guy that we tried out was a card-carrying CompTIA A+-certified tech. To help test him {having had experience with this school's graduates before..} I took him to an open PC on the bench and asked him to point at the motherboard.
He pointed at the case.
I told him, no, not the case, the *motherboard*.
He blinked twice, and pointed at the case again. He didn't last the day.
IMHO, those little pieces of paper don't guarantee jack anymore. -sigh-Re: (Score:2)
I'd almost buy that, but for a local vocational school that is notorious for "You pay, you pass" assembly-line certs. A guy that we tried out was a card-carrying CompTIA A+-certified tech. To help test him {having had experience with this school's graduates before..} I took him to an open PC on the bench and asked him to point at the motherboard.
He pointed at the case.
I told him, no, not the case, the *motherboard*.
He blinked twice, and pointed at the case again. He didn't last the day.
Wow. That's just....wow. I went through the A+ portion since the company paid for it and it's one more checkbox for the resume. I assumed that there would be some stuff in there that I didn't know. Turns out that I knew everything practical they were covering. The practice tests for A+ were awful because they were so much more difficult than the real test. The real test had some questions with grammatical errors, multiple correct answers where only one was required (which troubleshooting step should be tak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, folks. When I inquired about a job at my first shop, the owner led me to a room with a pile of parts and a case. The job was mine if I could build a working computer, with DOS 3.2 installed.
I got the job. ;)
Now, 15 years later, I'm one of the ones that vet the techs we use now. It's fraggin' scary, boys and girls. Most have never worked with anything pre-2k. One saw an Ubuntu desktop and asked if it was Vista. Another kept asking what to do at "back/next/cancel" prompts when just installing XP. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Also I did once have extensive knowledge of the IRQ for everything and how to debug bad expanded memory configurations in config.sys, etc., but really how much of that is relevant these days?
Couple of reasons... Believe it or not, we STILL have DOS machines coming through the shop. One recent example:A older Thai gentleman dragged in a 286. Yup. Intel 80286-based, with one of those old cases you could darn near run over with a car and not have it bend... Turn out he bought a PC-controlled engraving system in the early and had forgotten how to use it. Our job was to take this thing, configure it, and re-teach him how to make it go. How about the old-timer who still insists on using Lotus 1-2-3
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno (Score:2)
I would have given him double or nothing on the location of the power cable. After all, why does he need to know where the motherboard is to say, "Is it plugged in? Is it turned on? What version of Windows do you use?" all day long?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is more that you have to cram for those tests, if only because some questions have to be answered in a way most sane persons would never do. And most of the others make you remember stuff that in the unlikely event that you should ever need to know, you will have forgotten anyway.
My precise complaint. The argument I use against happy dappy college degree people is this: "Would you be able to pass all of the finals you took from all of your courses? No? Then what possible purpose was served by those tests? You have a degree that says you knew this stuff a while ago but you've forgotten everything that would let you earn that degree again." Now the ridiculous side of my argument would be the claim that all of that learning was of no value and the graduate has nothing to show from the
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft seems to prefer cheap tricks. And what's the worst thing that happens when someone fails? They pay to take the test again.
That's the same for pretty much every professional certification, including Cisco's, and the states bars just to name a couple. Are you suggesting that someone failing should be permanently blacklisted, or was this just a cheap-ass dig at microsoft?
CCNA is an entry level cert, as is MCSE. If the industry actually wants better qualifications, they'll demand a tougher exam. Blacklisting? Gods, no! And it isn't a cheap-ass dig, it's a statement of fact. I would much more prefer a fair test than the tricksy st
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if someone puts MCSE on their CV as their "top" certification what does that tell you about their technical/professional abilities?
It's almost like "Certified Crap". I mean you were stupid enough to waste time taking that exam AND put it on your CV like you're proud of it? Worse if you even PAID to sit for it. You'd only get a bit more respect than I reserve for those who pay for those "online doctorates". Unless you wrote "MCSE, but I was young and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if someone puts MCSE on their CV as their "top" certification what does that tell you about their technical/professional abilities?
I've seen good ones and bad ones, same as I've seen good doctors and bad ones. What bothers me is that a doctor who has his MD and passed his boards and is still licensed to practice medicine can still be a total fucking quack and butcher. I think the problem with "inaccurate" certs can go beyond just the geek professions.
It's almost like "Certified Crap". I mean you were stupid enough to waste time taking that exam AND put it on your CV like you're proud of it? Worse if you even PAID to sit for it. You'd only get a bit more respect than I reserve for those who pay for those "online doctorates". Unless you wrote "MCSE, but I was young and foolish" :).
And like I said, if you get the people who brag about what they've done, not just what they've certified, you're still running a chance of getting an overconfident boob who doesn't know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, there are obscure bits of theory and information that you might never come across in the real world. But remember that not every implementation is the same, and that today you might find that some configuration or protocol or option is unecessary, but tomorrow your new employer might use it a lot, and its nice to at least have a passing knowledge of it. "One man's trash is another's gold".
The other problem is that the subset of Total Computer Knowledge required for one job might have little overlap with another job. "Great, you're an AS/400 king. Welcome to a microcomputer shop." Even worse, if your knowledge becomes ghettoized, valuable in legacy situations with the market slowly dwindling... it's hard to get your game back for a brand new market with unfamiliar tools. It's even harder to land that job when your previous experience seems a bit tangential in comparison.
Life will be easier a
Re:They shouldn't be asking non-tech guys to hire. (Score:2)
Fact of the matter is, non-techs (here to mean someone who has no clue) shouldn't be there to hire techs.
Certs are not really good metrics for those who have little computer experience to judge whether a person would excel at a technical role. There are plenty of people who could do "puke learning" quite well, but simply cannot apply what they've "learnt".
Resumes, CVs, etc... are not good media to convince a person whether they're qualified or not. You may say that the applicant suck at writing resume, but how are you going to document every single bit of experience that you have at, say, identifying dead hardware and replacing/reviving a dead box?
Oh, I agree with you. And ideally, the interview process would be handled in the most sensible, logical fashion possible. Unfortunately, the real world has a nasty habit of being the result of ignorance and compromise rather than the product of sound methodology and practice. That still bothers me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps so, but how do you hire a tech person to weed out the "puke learners" if you don't have one already?
I see this biting people often. I'm a networking contractor in my spare time so I often get called in by word of mouth to repair something for a company who has no IT guy because the IT guy was a moron and broke stuff and left them with no documentation.
I have seen one manager's test for whether or not the tech guy was nerdy enough for the job though. He asked who the proponent thought would w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not accurate (Score:2, Interesting)
OSI Model (Score:4, Funny)
Good one, I wish I could have added that to various exam answers over the years. :-)
Please Do Not Throw Sausage Pizza Away P? M?
Re: (Score:2)
Prematurely?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OSI Model (updated!) (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please Do Not Tip Strippers Poorly Again
With the added point of: Know when to be right, and when to shut the hell up and let your boss dig his own hole.
Layer 8 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Layer 15: Phil, The Prince of Insufficient Light
Layer 14: Mordac, the Director of Information Services
Layer 13: Catbert, Human Resources director
Layer 12: The Pointed Hair Boss
Layer 11: Carol the secretary
Layer 10: Dilbert
Layer 9: Asok, the intern
Layer 8: User
Re: (Score:2)
CCNA, MCSE (Score:3, Funny)
Certs do not teach critical thinking... (Score:3)
I get tired of hearing this crap about certification X being a joke. Any kind of memorized knowledge is a joke if you can't apply it to real world situations. There are too many people out there getting certifications without the requisite knowledge and experience necessary to actually get something done.
If a company can't interview a candidate properly and gets stuck with someone who has no ability to think for themselves, then it is there own damn fault. Too many companies just want the hiring process to be as easy as reading a list of certifications an applicant has.
CCNA is a joke (Score:2)
Read the book and Cisco IOS Cookbook, my two cents (Score:3, Informative)
How to place this book is like this, so you've finished or are close to your CCNA and would like some sound practical advice to round out the course or maybe to help you revise it, well this is the book for you. If you know more and are in deeper Cisco terrority well you might like this but you'd probably prefer the Cisco IOS cookbook.
Off topic - I also got a copy of Limoncelli et al's revised version of The Practise of System and Network Administration in the same batch, given the first edition was most excellent there is little to say except the second is even better. Common sense and practical knowledge without getting lost in OS or application issues.
I read it, I'd give it 3 1/2 stars (Score:2)
The first chapter (Score:2)
"... and finally offers advice on when and where to use autonegotiation..."
would undoubtedly be the shortest paragraph in the chapter. A single word would do.
I disagree... (Score:5, Informative)
My point is had I actually studied for a CCNA before I was hired, I would've hit the ground running most likely would've advanced to my NOC position in 3 - 4 months less time. The CCNA is not a joke. It may not teach you ALL the terminology and EVERYTHING you need to know about EVERYTHING, but it's a hell of a good start.
Distinguish CCNA from A+ (Score:5, Informative)
The A+ exam is a complete joke. It might have been relevant 10 years ago, but isn't anymore. The vast majority of questions were completely irrelevant today, and mostly irrelevant for any computer faster than 500MHz. Most of it was pure memorization, the kind all those cram books are for. There were very few real-world questions -- less than a half-dozen. There were even a few questions that were nonsense -- none of the answers were applicable, much less valid, and in some cases the question didn't even make sense.
The CCNA, however, is a killer. I took mine in May 2007. The first part of the exam is roughly one-third memorization questions, one-third diagram interpretation questions, and one-third real-world questions. Most of the diagram questions are trick questions with multiple realistic-looking answers. (In other words, you can't just look for the "obvious" answer.) This part of the exam is meant to test your grasp of networking concepts.
The second part of the CCNA exam is what really gets you, though. It's all about configuration. Most of it is spent in a simulator. And not just a simulator for one router or switch, but a simulator for an entire network. One of my questions involved configuring 4 different routers and 3 switches. Oh, and they can disable parts of the simulator to make your job harder -- like having to diagnose a connectivity problem without being able to ping or traceroute. And yeah, they like to throw multiple IOS versions at you to make sure you know the different variations of the commands (especially for switches). You cannot cram for these simulator-type problems.
I tend to consider myself a pretty smart guy. I've been working as a network admin for 10+ years, albeit not with Cisco equipment. I aced the classwork for the CCNA courses without putting forth any effort whatsoever. I did homework in class and never had to come in after hours to catch up. And yet, I had ~45 seconds left on the timer when I finished part 2 of the CCNA exam. It's that tough, and they've got it timed down to the last minute. You do not have time to flounder and guess.
If you don't know your stuff backwards and forwards, you are not going to pass the second half of the CCNA exam. It's that simple.
Now, having said all of that, remember: the CCNA is the entry-level exam. It's not meant to certify that you can walk into a company and rewire an international infrastructure by hand. It's meant to certify that if you put me in front of a router or a switch or a small network that is having problems, I can most likely figure out what the problem is. The building-huge-networks stuff is part of the CCNP, not the CCNA. (The first CCNP class is, after all, "Building Scalable Networks".)
I see plenty of haterade about the CCNA exam, but I never seem to see it from people that have taken the tests. And I have to wonder: for all of those exam-crammers with CCNAs that everyone seems to know, when did they get their certs and are they current? I doubt it.
CCNA -vs- CCNE (Score:2)
Certified or NOT?????!!!!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're certified, usually they'll skip thos
CCNA != networking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, beyond getting your foot in the door or serving as some sort of continuing education sort of credit with your current boss, there's not much to them. Unless you have to have the
Re:What value DO the entry level certs have? (Score:5, Funny)
Being a pervert is optional.
Re:What value DO the entry level certs have? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you study for the CCNA (rather than braindump it) then you do learn quite a lot of useful basic networking stuff e.g. subnetting, vlans, trunking, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but no you don't. You learn Cisco's way of doing everything which is painfully different from everyone else from Nortel, 3com, HP, Brocade, Adtran, and a number of other vendors.
For every solution there is a standards compliant way to do it and there is a Cisco way to do it. To Cisco's credit their products support the standards but one need only look at the removal of CDP from HP ProCurve products to see why the Cisco way isn't always the best way. Subnetting into VLANs and trunking is basically th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about basic networking knowledge, not Cisco specific, which is learnt as part of CCNA. The basic theories of VLANs, trunking and subnetting do not change between manufacturers as you state yourself: "Subnetting into VLANs and trunking is basically the same from vendor to vendor."
The Cisco exams are more concerned about how you setup LACP on a Catalyst 6500 running IOS 12 vs an older Catalyst running IOS 10 with the biggest difference being syntactical.
So
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since then I have gotten several certifications, not because they mean anything to me (other than I can study for and take a te
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking I might study for some basic certs (
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I can really offer any good advice, I'm not a hirer or particularly good at getting jobs or anything, but I'll contribute my 2 cents all the same. At the very least, someone might decide to argue with me and accidentally contribute something useful.
Since you don't really have much experience in what you want to be doing, I think a cert is probably a good way to get a foot in the door. As the GP said, if you're choosing between two candidates with limited experience, the certs are likely to t
Re: (Score:2)
seriously folks, how hard is this? are we not nerds here?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that the two job areas are very different and the typical developer wouldn't last a week working in IT. The same could be said for IT types working as developers, but they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. The CCNA exam has a way of testing you on everything you don't need to know while ignoring the important things you should know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Grammar flames are legit for published articles (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of defending a "grammar nazi," you don't complain when your C++ compiler yells at you for syntax errors (e.g. forgetting a semicolon, leaving out a comma in a parameter list, misspelling a keyword, etc) so why do you complain when an English "compiler" does? :)
(not banging on you, mind... but sometimes the grammar nazis tend to be mroe than a bit overbearing and come across as egotistical - something that even my debugger hasn't managed yet).
(of course, that only holds true until some bright soul re-writes GDB to spew "hahahahaha! you suck!" to STDOUT...)