Linux Foundation says many Linux admins and engineers are certifiable

> "The supply of labor has been far outpaced by the demand for Linux,"

OK. Employers need Linux-knowledgable people. I doubt they're holding back on hiring because not enough of those people have a particular piece of paper. I rarely see job postings that request that candidates have a Linux certification. And by rarely, I mean only a few times in a year. Smart employers are not going to hire someone just because of the candidates ability to cram for an exam (the RH exam is very different and the only one I would, at this time, even consider obtaining). So what's creating this gap between employer demand and the supply of Linux-knowledgable candidates? It's not a certification. It's the employer demand that the person they hire for their Linux needs also be a network administrator with specific Cisco hardware experience, able to develop mobile applications using Java/Android/fashionable-language-du-jour, be an Oracle/MSSQL DBA, be a Hadoop architect, have extensive cloud experience, and be able to ride herd over their Windows server farm. And you need to have 4-6 years experience doing all of those things in an Enterprise environment. The job boards are positively lousy with job requirements like this. The hiring process is what's severely broken and certifications are not going to fix it.

AND they have to be willing to work for $8 per hour, with unpaid overtime, and most people work 70 hours per week.

What exactly does Certifiable imply?

Regarding the specifications R U turn implies - it means, "lock them up they are a danger to themselves and potentially to others."

Just a guess.

YBT

From experience, I can answer with authority:

"Yes, to both."

My Dearest August Gus III:

I always knew you were an out-of-the box thinker ... I just did not quite suspect that implied literal ramifications.

YBT

+1 on certifiable