It really just depends on the employer. If a person knows their stuff and can prove it, I would think that always trumps any other qualifications. On the other hand if one is RHCE and another candidate is not, the non-certified individual had better be pretty darn fluent to be able to beat the other person out. Having said that, there are indeed a lot of people who DO have a ton of knowledge and experience, and no certs. Whether their background is a lot of UNIX, programming or whatever, I have known many people who basically should never 'need' to get certified, at least not in Linux. However there are also a lot of people (maybe more), young Jedi knights if you will, who just need to prove qualifications to get to the next level ( helpdesk to Net Eng, Net Eng to Consultant, whatever). That is, to me, what certs are good for. Not to get you something you aren't qualified for, but to allow you to get an interview or maybe a job that you wouldn't get otherwise. My rundown on the linux certs: 1. Linux+ - entry level, M/c as stated, recently made harder, still good to get if you are someone in the second category...it still takes you to a higher level, although I agree being M/C you can't put much stock in it, all by itself anyway. 2. LPIC - mid level, along with Novell's cert. They take a while to get with multiple tests and such. Novell has basically piggybacked the Linux training onto their CNA/CNE track that was already in place. 3. RHCE -- probably the best Linux cert, by far, and undoubtedly the hardest from what I understand. ESPECially true now that it is 100% hands- on (RH did away with the M/C part a while back). Look at the job boards, they are basically asking for RHCE (and occasionally Solaris or LPIC certifications). Marc