Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 27 April 2012 18:34, Robert Ryley <> wrote:

Just because people do irrational things, does not mean they *should.*

Depends on the purpose. What is irrational to A is perfectly sensible to B.
Outcome is what matters.

 The whole certification issue is caused by people without
technical knowledge passing judgement on things they do not know
about.  Again, who certifies the certifiers, and at what point does it

Ok, so abolish all the universties, government regulators etc. Besides,
there are other reasons for certification than simple quality assurance.
Governments like to know public money is spent on training leading to some
clear outcome, people like to have official recognition. If there is market
demand there is no reason not to provide. Income can then be used for your

This issue of trust is not just a philosophy problem, but something
that is an active research problem in certain areas of computer
science.  If there is an equivalence between computer programs and
logical proofs as the Curry-Howard correspondence explains, programs
can be verified to be "correct" -- and will only compute a subset of
computable functions that are specified.  These proofs can then be
checked with a proof checker, which is just another program.

Sounds like a logical argument for something that is at least in part an
emotional decision.

" Though the rationale for certification is always societal good, the
real objective is different: seizure of power. Certification is not
something we implement for the benefit of the society but for the
benefit of the certifiers.

To an extent that is true. Why not provide a service that people are
prepared to pay for as a means of funding FLOSS? Better than paying for
licenses - don't forget the USA is not the world and there are many
different ways certification is used.

Seems to me you are complaining more about the way the certification is
being implemented since end user certification has a lot different
functions to those you are criticising. Here in the UK the government pays
providers to put on training courses. How do they know those providers
actually run the courses and with reasonable quality? They require them to
result in qualifications for the users of the courses and use independent
Awarding Organisations to do that. Unfortunately if all those
qualifications are targeted on MSO all the training is geared to MSO. So
the strategy of certificating end users is multi-faceted. It earns revenue
while shifting the training dynamic with a clear marketing effect. But as I
said before, its nothing to do with certifying companies or techs, its
about qualifications for IT users which is a completely different and
potentially much bigger market.


Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.