The outline for the "certification" is like a sales manual for the business. It's like the exam for being an outbound call center marketeer.
GitHub Certifications (Beta)
21–30 of 129 posts
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#22Ugh, this has Microsoft's playbook written all over it. Introduce a certification, thus increasing the gap between developers who (had their employee) pay Microsoft and developers that didn't. Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github), muddying the difference in managers' lexicons. Attempt to set Github as a standard to reach in everyone's mind. I mean there's a c…
I think you're seeing non-existing intent. This seems like a straightforward way to monetize their acquisition without affecting the users (with paywalls or what not). Certifications are a gold mine for enterprise. Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience…
Personally I've found certifications are a good way to show you're good at passing certifications, and nothing else.
I have nothing against people who show up with their resumes filled with them, but it's not a valuable indicator in my opinion. I'd rather see what they've built. Show me some useful things on your github or blog. That I can see value in.
Obviously we're talking about software-related certs, not pilots licenses, etc...
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#23I’m going to create a certification for an “ls” command.
Looking at the list of options: ABCFGHLOPRSTUW@abcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1% ... I'd says it makes sense.
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#24I’m going to create a certification for an “ls” command.
Question one: what does the following command do?
Is -aRe: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#25Ugh, this has Microsoft's playbook written all over it. Introduce a certification, thus increasing the gap between developers who (had their employee) pay Microsoft and developers that didn't. Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github), muddying the difference in managers' lexicons. Attempt to set Github as a standard to reach in everyone's mind. I mean there's a c…
I think you're seeing non-existing intent. This seems like a straightforward way to monetize their acquisition without affecting the users (with paywalls or what not). Certifications are a gold mine for enterprise. Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience…
This seems like a very narrow view. I don't know where you live but in Asian countries, people care about certificates too much. It's also often used as a way to filter poor people without directly discriminating because certification costs time and money.
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#26Slightly off topic, but the url seems to be conflict with a user called "certifications". You can find that user using GitHub api or Mobile app, but you can't view his profile page on desktop.
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#27The main problematic thing about this is that it can be used as a way for Microsoft to push their beliefs and agendas. It further centralizes git even more.
For example (extreme case to make a point), imagine if the questions were like:
1) Which is the most reliable git platform? (a) github (b) gitlab (c) gitweb
2) Which is the best license for new code? (a) MIT (b) GPLv3 (c) ALv2
3) Which is better for coding? (a) spaces (b) tabs (c) both
The point is that Microsoft shouldn't be the central authority for git things. Lets make the internet, the web, and development in general more decentralized.
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#28Ugh, this has Microsoft's playbook written all over it. Introduce a certification, thus increasing the gap between developers who (had their employee) pay Microsoft and developers that didn't. Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github), muddying the difference in managers' lexicons. Attempt to set Github as a standard to reach in everyone's mind. I mean there's a c…
I think you're seeing non-existing intent. This seems like a straightforward way to monetize their acquisition without affecting the users (with paywalls or what not). Certifications are a gold mine for enterprise. Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience…
We'd have to review the contenu to be sure, but my initial reaction was the same as @breakingcups. That would fit with a push against gitlab's devops strategy, amongst other things ?
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#29Is it April 1st already?
Re: GitHub Certifications (Beta)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're seeing non-existing intent. This seems like a straightforward way to monetize their acquisition without affecting the users (with paywalls or what not). Certifications are a gold mine for enterprise. Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience…
Personally I've found certifications are a good way to show you're good at passing certifications, and nothing else. I have nothing against people who show up with their resumes filled with them, but it's not a valuable indicator in my opinion. I'd rather see what they've built. Show me some useful things on your github or blog. That I can see value in. Obviously we're talking about software-related certs, not pilots…
When recruiting, I usually take certifications as a token of the lack of skills rather than a demonstration of skills