Conference koolit::vms_curriculum

  Why does this require membership?
  
  $

    
    
    Good question!  I thought all the curriculum notes files were to be
    public?!?
    
       Greg

Why does it require permission? To make it secure, of course...

:^)

  Please unrestrict it.
  
  $

    The former Digital Services Product Training Manager set up the
    security conference as a way to provide information on security
    products for which there was no formal training.  Over time, the
    conference has also been used to discuss curriculum issues.
    
    It is my understanding that the restriction was to ensure that there
    would be a list of people who would be getting security documentation
    and that none of the geographies could claim that their people were not
    getting security product information.  Also, there was potential for
    putting information into the notesfile for support people that
    engineering did not want to make widely available.
    
    At this point, I would prefer not to change the policy until I have
    time to understand the implications.  But, instructors with a need
    to know and/or a desire to provide quality feedback should contact
    SUPER::SECURITY_TRN for membership.  
    
    Jack

    
    
    Actually, then, there should be a separate course where, as necessary,
    we can air our dirty linen about the security courses separate from all
    other "security" issues.
    
    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

    	The summary of the Managing OpenVMS System and Network Security
    pilot held in Landover, Maryland during the week of October 26 is
    posted in:

    	SUPER::WORK7:[SECURITY_TRAINING]SECURITY_PILOT.PS

    	Please post any comments regarding the pilot results here or send
    them to me by mail at SUPER::WTHOMAS.

    			Wendy

    Hello.
    Possibly due to the fact that the notefile relating to this subject is
    my membership only (I became a member this morning), there is
    absolutely no discussion anywhere by anyone who has taught this new
    course.
    
    As someone who has less than four weeks before teaching this, I would
    like to use this forum to ask if there is anyone out there who has
    successfully taught what, to me, seems a totally non-standard (to say
    the least) course offering.
    
    If you have, please notify me (DTN 520-6570, 310-416-6570) at your
    earliest convenience.
    
    Thanks,
    
    tom

    Tom,
    
    The pilot for this course went very well.  It was taught by Mark Rine.
    
    The course is not non-standard.  It was created according to current
    standards and the use of generic and platform specific pieces will be
    used in the future, where possible, to leverage more training for the
    amount invested.
    
    I was very uncomfortable with the amount of instructor review (none)
    that was received during the development cycle.  I believe, again based
    on the pilot, that it is a sound course.

    Jack,
    
    Now that I have done my first teach in the class, I can safely speak of
    the problems I had in the design of the class.
    
    First of all, despite your support of the class, the design of this one
    was non-standard.  In the last ten years I have been teaching with the
    company, the VMS course books were designed to be open-ended pages,
    discussing topics briefly, and giving liberal examples of how something
    worked on the VAX.  This book had many long pages of long paragraphs. 
    If the purpose of this book is to be something they use as reference
    later, than this is appropriate; however, if this is to be used as
    something to teach from, this is not.
    
    Some of the problems that I found in the book:
    
    1.  Redundancy.   Viruses are described in at least three chapters, and
    	the Orange book in at least two.   The way it jumps back and forth
    	makes it appear that the chapters were written by different
    	departments who didn't compare notes.
    
    2.	Pages that don't belong in the main body of a chapter.  Chapter 2,
    	for example, has eight pages of what the Rainbow series and the
    	European White book, and how to order your own copies.
    
    3.	Illustrations that were supposed to stand on their own, but didn't
    	(and no help from the instructor guide>.  Specifically, the one
        the various levels of access, and keys.
    
    4.  The entire chapter on PC security.  Admittedly, with VAX systems
    	being used for Pathworks Servers more frequently there will be PCs
    	hooked up to VAXen, but do sections warning people of the danger of
    	leaving their laptops unattended belong in class on "VMS SECURITY"?
    
    5.  The VMS stuff has been moved into a separate book, presumably to
    	allow the separation of VMS from generic informations, so that at
    	some time in the future an ULTRIX book can be set up to use the
    	same generic text.  However, it is somewhat disturbing to see the
    	same typos showing up from the other course.  (The example on 4-43
     	has the primary hour restrictions showing the same misalignment
    	as in the SysNet series.
    
    6.  For completeness sake, the SysNet pages that discussed security
    	issues were included in the lab book.  Unfortunately, some of the 
    	security issue material from the old classes was not.  We have
    	pages in the new book which discusses what OSI is (which is nice to
    	know), but we have lost the example of how to use the Ethernet
    	Module configurator to look for masquerading nodes.
    
    7.	The lab exercises are written around the use of case studies.  Two
    	years ago, I attended an "Instructor Product Forum."  As part of
    	that Forum, we were given what was supposed to be a 20-minute
    	overview of the use of case studies.  When we finally cut off the
    	presenter after an hour, we tried to explain to that presenter the 
    	inappropriateness of case studies in a VMS managers class, but
    	could make our opinions valued, since they disagreed with this
    	presenter.  Now they are finding their way into more of our
    	courses.
    
    	Case studies have a limited usefulness in an operating system
    	class.  Call me crazy, but when I spend almost two thousand bucks
    	for an operating system lecture/lab course, I expect the lab
    	exercises to be performed on a computer.
    
    	In order for case studies to be useful at all, the personal
    	dynamics needs of the course require at least a dozen students, so
    	that the shy people in the class can sink into their comfortable
    	bacgrounds letting the less-shy do the work; and you have enough
    	groups that you can compare notes.  Unfortunately, we rarely get
    	many people in a class.  My class had a total for four students,
    	none of whom wanted to work on the case studies.
    
    I tried to follow along with what the instructor guide said to do, but
    found that my students really wanted some VMS in their VMS course, so
    we shined the case studies, sped through the "Student Workbook", and
    concentrated on the lab exercise stuff.
    
    In short, the way I made this new class successful was to deliver the
    old class this was supposed to replace.
    
    Now, I realize, in an ideal world, all of these concerns are one that
    should have been discussed before the book went to print (You mentioned
    your discomfort with the lack of instructor participation), but we
    don't work in an ideal situation.  The instructors are constantly told
    that they "should have made their comments known in the notes file
    earlier" and we keep trying (unsuccessfully) to convince  course
    development that the notesfiles are not a good forum for the type of
    interaction required.
    
    You see, instructors have this problem:  we teach for a living.  From
    approximately 8:30am to 5:00pm, we are in the classroom.  We don't have
    the luxury of reading notesfiles.  We go to a customer site for a week,
    and when we come back there are 45 new ALLIN1 messages (most of which
    get handled during our lunch time>.  Not to mention the fact that most
    of us have (or would like to have) a life away from Digital during the
    weekends (when we aren't on airplanes> and evenings.
    
    So posting notes telling us where we can find the suggested course does
    us no good:  the company recently increased the number of weeks we
    should be on platform, which means that if I have a choice of spending
    my week reading up on a new  course, or being in a classroom earning
    money for the company (and thereby increasing my course-weeks count to
    help improve my next evaluation> guess which one I'm going to choose.
    
    <Of course, when the discussion of the course is in a locked conference,
    this does have a tendency to discourage participation further>
    
    Typically, the only time an instructor can make the time to read a
    conference is when he/she is starting to get ready to teach the course,
    and is looking to colleagues for assistance (Which made your response
    to my request for help sting a little more: 
    	me:  Help
    	you: It's a good course!
    I am sure this was not the intent of your words, but since we only see
    the letters, and have no voice, the reader's perception of the words is
    all.  This is another problem with using notes)
    
    In fact, the only reason I am taking time (at home, and  when I should be
    studying for my next new class) in finally answering the comments was
    because in the last few weeks I have gotten several calls from
    instructors around the country basically asking "So how did you get it
    to work?"  And I keep telling them the same thing I listed here:  I
    gave them back the course they were expecting:  the old one.
    
    tom

    
    Re: .10
    
    I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the case studies!  I was at
    that same IPF.  The response from the instructors was very clear.  I
    guess our opinions count the same as they always have.  I have been
    looking at the preliminary materials for the Advanced Network
    Management course.  Under no circumstances would I use the "case
    studies" included in that course.  They contain "dialogue" that is
    written like a poorly written novel!  The tone is insulting to the
    reader and the technical content, such as it is, is thin.  I'm
    continually amazed that this kind of stuff gets through the two or
    three million review phases built into this "system".  Once again
    people who don't teach these courses are considered better judges of
    what's appropriate than instructors!  This junk, being someone's pet
    project, will undoubtedly get rammed through over the protests of the
    field.
    
    Mark Thorne
    
    
    Mark Thorne

	I have not read the case studied referred to in note 157.11, but I 
    	would like to address the issue of case studies in general.  The
    	value of case studies as an educational tool is well established in
    	many fields.
        
    	I disagree with the philosophy of using case studies to teach everything
    	all the time, but I do think there are times when a case study can 
        be very beneficial.

	<They contain "dialogue" that is written like a poorly written novel!
    
	Yes good case studies often use dialogue.  More often they weave a
    	little story around a set of circumstances that describes a problem.
    	Some of the information given is not relevant to the problem and
        part of the value of the case study is the elimination of
        unimportant facts.
    
    	Case studies do not have to be thin on technical content although
    	it is not the best way to teach a technical skill like how to run disk
        backup.  Case study is much more valuable when it comes to teaching
    	how to design an appropriate backup strategy for a site.  I think
        our  VMS courses have been very thin on teaching design issues that
    	are very important to good system management and very long on 
    	teaching lists of qualifiers.
    
    	I think case studies are a challenge for both course development
        and for instructors.  Course development needs to learn to write
        good case studies and instructors need to learn how to present
        them.
    
    	One important thing to remember is that the student is expected to
    	read the case study. If the case study has some written exercises
        associated with it, the students can work alone or in small groups.
    	A case study scenario can set the stage for lab exercises as was done 
    	in the troubleshooting course.
    
    	I think in our classroom environment, that shorter case studies are
    	more appropriate since students are not expected to prepare for
    	class by reading the case.
    
    	The role of the instructor is to stimulate a discussion of the
        problems and to work the class toward a solution by asking rather
        than answering questions.  The case often does not have one
    	solution.  It is the instructor who compares different solutions
        and talks about situations in which each could be appropriate.
    
    	So what do you do when you have a class of 4 very quiet students?
    	Try sitting down at a table together to discuss the case study.
    
    	I think if L/L classes are to have a future, it will be because
    	more inovative methods of presenting material are used. We can't
    	reject a successful teaching method just because we are unfamiliar
    	with its value.  
    
     	And finally I agree with the comment on the dialogue.  It is often
    	corny.

    RE: .13
    
    I fully understand the issues involved in case studies, but thanks for
    the tutorial.  I agree that conventionally our courses have not
    properly addressed the idea of design.  There are certainly other
    techniques that would serve equally well.  After, I believe, more than
    one IPF where the case study idea was proposed, and rejected by
    instructors, it sure looks like this is someone's pet idea that's being
    driven in anyway.  Case studies require proper instructor technique to
    be effective.  Where is the funding going to come from to train
    instructors?  No, I don't see anything about training.  I see "case
    studies" that are written in a way that's guaranteed to be received
    contemptuously by customer students, and instructors being left out
    in the cold once again.  I agree wholeheartedly with .11.  For these
    prices, labs should be able to be performed on computers.  Case studies
    depend too heavily on the willing participation of the audience, which
    will vary widely from course to course and from at-facility to onsite.
    They also depend on the willing participation of instructors.
    Instructors who have repeatedly rejected this as a viable technique in
    this arena.  There are, of course, those people who believe they know
    the Digital classroom better than Digital instructors.  There are also
    people believing that Elvis is alive.  Of the two, the Elvis idea seems
    more credible.
    
    Mark Thorne
    

    
    
    I have to agree, heartily, with Mark on this one.  Simply put:  I want
    the person who wrote these case studies in the DECnet specialty course
    to teach them while I watch from the back of the room.  If you survive
    unbloodied, well, I'd be surprised.  They are insulting and
    condescending and assume, in many cases, the intelligence of the reader
    is no greater than the 3rd grade level.
    
    Further, when we teach a L/L course, there must be some hands-on
    involved.  If I stand and *talk* to a bunch of students about a
    problem, even it was a real problem, it does little if anything to
    re-enforce the important concepts compared to setting up a live system
    with problems and going at it on that system.  
    
    Case studies in a truly academic situation (college courses, for
    example) deal with real (and often detailed) data analysis.  Our
    classroom setting doesn't afford the time for such situations.  
    We've got 4.5 to 5 days to deal with (often) what really should be
    weeks of material (if proper assimilation time was to be allowed). 
    We've got to get down and dirty with the system, and not read them some
    hypothetical situation.  Personally, I will recommend, if it stays in
    its present form, that we *not* offer this DECnet specialty course in
    the Chicago training center.  If we, however, do offer it, and I'm
    called upon to teach it, I will, if possible, remove the case studies
    and replace them with teachable material -- what that materials will
    be, at this point, is unknown.
    
    
    My apologies for being terse, but as Mark said, for years instructors
    have said that case studies really don't work.  We feel ignored, even
    though we are the ones who daily, and for years, have been having the
    direct customer contact.
    
        Greg Diercks

  I really enjoyed my time at Microsoft University.  It was quite refreshing
  to see how other corporations develop Training Classes.  The team I was on
  developed their first Windows NT Support course.  There were 6 team members
  -- we had 4 course writers, a 'Subject Matter Expert' that taught the pilot,
  and myself as the technical reviewer.  Of the 4 course writers, 2 wrote
  modules, one functioned as the team leader and wrote a few modules, and the
  last one wrote Labs and Exercises!  (I bet you were beginning to wonder how
  I would get this back on the topic!) 

  The labs were all tested and re-tested, they opened up a classroom, invited
  other Microsoft employees to come over (free sandwiches and pizza for lunch
  and dinner for all participants) and test the lab exercises, had other
  instructors work the labs with and without reading the lecture material
  first.  Quite a production for Labs for a course -- the labs weren't a
  last-minute add-on item, but a serious, major piece of their courseware!

  In the discussions I had with the "Lab Lady", we talked about case studies,
  Lab exercises (hands-on with hardware), written exercises, demos and the
  like.  They have a very sound approach to most of this -- the more hands-on,
  the better!  The lab exercises were designed to take about 2-3 hours a day! 
  There were a few written exercises, several demos and 2 major case studies. 
  However, these were not discussion-style case studies, they were really
  preparation for lab exercises.  

  Overall I felt that most of the materials for the case studies were well 
  written.  We would sit around large tables working out the scenarios,
  reviewing, re-editing, and rewording to achieve the best mix of technical
  need, difficult concepts, extraneous data and a 'sense of accomplishment'. 
  Although the "Lab Lady" was responsible for developing the labs, this was
  usually done with the Pilot Instructor's help.  The Instructor was an 
  integral part of the Lab design, working with the developer to ensure their
  effectiveness and relevance to the course and the student's eventual tasks.
  
  One of these labs was the case study that I thought was the best designed of
  all of the various exercises.  In the pilot (and pre-pilot testing) it went
  very well.  The keys to its success were 1) relevance to audience, 2) a 
  reinforcement of lecture topics and 3) its final solution required applying
  the results to the system -- a "Hands-On Case Study"!

  Yes, case studies can be done with success, but Microsoft's market studies 
  had indicated that their customer base wanted the Lab portions of the
  courses to center around 'doing', not 'talking'.  Case studies that lead to
  solutions worked out on the systems were quite successful.  

  I happen to believe that putting case studies into courses has certain
  validity, but we need to  carefully determine what the students want and
  need.  We need to test it out thoroughly and completely, make Labs
  (regardless of type) a serious development effort with careful testing, not
  last-minute add-ons.  I use case studies myself (In my VAXcluster Mgr and my
  VMS Performance courses), but I *always* weave them around a hands-on
  solution.  These are the parts of the course that usually get the best
  comments -- to me and on the SOFs!
  
  $

    As I said earlier in this string, THERE WAS NOT ONE INSTRUCTOR WILLING
    TO REVIEW THIS COURSE DURING DEVELOPMENT.  I also said that the pilot
    went well.  We were extremely upfront about the approach we were going
    to take with this course.  We are in a position where we have to do
    more with less funding and I think you will see more courses with a
    generic and a platform specific component.  (Buck, I recall you
    suggesting that we take the same approach with the "dependable systems"
    systems course that is currently under development.)
    
    We won't have any money to do anything with this course before Q1FY94
    when we need to add C2.  At that time, we will revisit the labs and
    case studies.  Your specific comments are important to us and we will
    consider them when we work on the course.
    
    I know you people are under a lot of pressure these days, but PLEASE,
    provide comments during development when we can respond to them.
    

  Jack, 
  
  Notice that the discussion on the security topic is in THIS conference. 
  There are several of us that would help, but think that the restricted
  access security conference is a rather poor idea.   I've looked at the
  conference, from another user's account -- I'm not a member, no one ever
  responded to my mail, but I'm not sure I want to be in it anymore. 
  Anyways, I didn't see anything in there that wasn't already discussed in
  HUMAN::SECURITY_POLICY, HUMAN::SECURITY_INFORMATION or DISSRV::PC_SECURITY, 
  or other non-membership conferences on the Easy-Net.  So, open it up for
  the masses.
  
  Also, there were no updates in this conference (which also covers
  security issues in SysNet3) and no annoucements of chapter/book locations
  for the Security course.  Kinda hard to review it if we don't know where
  to get the material.
  
  Reply .7 told us the pilot was over!  No advanced warning that the pilot
  was going to happen?  Gee!  Talk about security!!
  
  $

    re: .17
    
>>    As I said earlier in this string, THERE WAS NOT ONE INSTRUCTOR WILLING
>>    TO REVIEW THIS COURSE DURING DEVELOPMENT. 
    
>>    I know you people are under a lot of pressure these days, but PLEASE,
>>    provide comments during development when we can respond to them.
    
    
    Both of these were the comments I predicted/answered in .10 (starting
    about line 88).  Same as before:  you get me course credit for
    reviewing courseware, and I'll be glad to.

Tom,

I really didn't do a good job of responding to your comments yesterday.  I made
the mistake of logging in and trying to catch up on 2.5 weeks worth of work
after spending 48 hours travelling with no sleep.  I apologize for the knee
jerk reaction when you obviously spent time trying to be constructive, which I
really appreciate.

I wish that I had solutions around where to find the time to review courses.
But the fact is that there was no instructor review.  The best I can do is
raise this as an issue using this course as an example.  I am sure that many of
the issues that you raise could have been addressed to some extent.  I also
want you to know that the developer worked extremely hard trying to produce
this course in a relatively short amount of time with no instructor input. 
More comments below, see >>>:

    Jack,
    
    Now that I have done my first teach in the class, I can safely speak of
    the problems I had in the design of the class.
    
    First of all, despite your support of the class, the design of this one
    was non-standard.  
>>> The design of the course was meant to be non-standard.  We believed that
>>> we had an opportunity to try something new that would give DEC more 
>>> return on investment with an eye towards creating a new standard.  We
>>> are being driven in this direction by the businesses.  There also was
>>> not adequate time to to do the job.  The developer consistently worked
>>> nights and weekends to get the work done.  (sound familliar?) I want to
>>> see the next iteration meet the original design goals but take the issues
>>> you raise into acount.
    
    In the last ten years I have been teaching with the
    company, the VMS course books were designed to be open-ended pages,
    discussing topics briefly, and giving liberal examples of how something
    worked on the VAX.  This book had many long pages of long paragraphs. 
    If the purpose of this book is to be something they use as reference
    later, than this is appropriate; however, if this is to be used as
    something to teach from, this is not.
>>> We need to figure out how we can better get student materials to serve
>>> the purpose of teaching and reference.  I continuously hear that students
>>> need reference materials to take away with them to solidify and support
>>> what they gained from attending training.  Again, given reduced levels of
>>> of funding with the expectation that more will be produced, courses aren't
>>> going to be the same as they have for the past ten years.  We need and
>>> value your input on how to meet some of these challenges.

    Some of the problems that I found in the book:
    
    1.  Redundancy.   Viruses are described in at least three chapters, and
    	the Orange book in at least two.   The way it jumps back and forth
    	makes it appear that the chapters were written by different
    	departments who didn't compare notes.

    2.	Pages that don't belong in the main body of a chapter.  Chapter 2,
    	for example, has eight pages of what the Rainbow series and the
    	European White book, and how to order your own copies.
>>> I will discuss problems 1 and 2 with the developer.  I reviewed parts, but
>>> not all of the course but didn't notice the problems.  There may have been
>>> good reasons behind the organization.

    3.	Illustrations that were supposed to stand on their own, but didn't
    	(and no help from the instructor guide>.  Specifically, the one
        the various levels of access, and keys.
>>> This would have been good input during the review cycle.  It is possible
>>> for a developer, who has spent time learning the subject matter, to 
>>> see things as obvious where they may not be.  If there are any other
>>> examples of this issue, we would really like to kjnow so that they can
>>> be fixed.

    4.  The entire chapter on PC security.  Admittedly, with VAX systems
    	being used for Pathworks Servers more frequently there will be PCs
    	hooked up to VAXen, but do sections warning people of the danger of
    	leaving their laptops unattended belong in class on "VMS SECURITY"?
>>> The future OpenVMS strategy is largely based on supporting this type of 
>>> environment, and not just through Pathworks, but with many other forms
>>> of connectivity.  I believe that the chapter is appropriate and some
>>> of the worst system penetrations have resulted from terminals, etc.
>>> being left logged in.  People forget about the obvious.

    5.  The VMS stuff has been moved into a separate book, presumably to
    	allow the separation of VMS from generic informations, so that at
    	some time in the future an ULTRIX book can be set up to use the
    	same generic text.  However, it is somewhat disturbing to see the
    	same typos showing up from the other course.  (The example on 4-43
     	has the primary hour restrictions showing the same misalignment
    	as in the SysNet series.
>>> You are 1000% correct about the proliferation of typos that should
>>> have been caught in the first place.

    6.  For completeness sake, the SysNet pages that discussed security
    	issues were included in the lab book.  Unfortunately, some of the 
    	security issue material from the old classes was not.  We have
    	pages in the new book which discusses what OSI is (which is nice to
    	know), but we have lost the example of how to use the Ethernet
    	Module configurator to look for masquerading nodes.
>>> Good point.  We will look at this for the next iteration.  Again, review
>>> could have eliminated this problem.

    7.	The lab exercises are written around the use of case studies.  Two
    	years ago, I attended an "Instructor Product Forum."  As part of
    	that Forum, we were given what was supposed to be a 20-minute
    	overview of the use of case studies.  When we finally cut off the
    	presenter after an hour, we tried to explain to that presenter the 
    	inappropriateness of case studies in a VMS managers class, but
    	could make our opinions valued, since they disagreed with this
    	presenter.  Now they are finding their way into more of our
    	courses.
>>> I wasn't doing this job when the IPF you describe was being held.
>>> In reading some of the other notes, it sounds almost like instructors
>>> believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to force case studies.
>>> This is not the case (no pun intended).  In looking at what we were
>>> trying to accomplish, case studies seemed to be the most practical
>>> way to engage the students.  I am very much in agreement with Emmalee's
>>> comments on case studies.  I was also impressed with Buck's description
>>> of how Microsoft designed case studies.  I don't know where we will
>>> find the resources to do similar.  I want to look into this.
    	Case studies have a limited usefulness in an operating system
    	class.  Call me crazy, but when I spend almost two thousand bucks
    	for an operating system lecture/lab course, I expect the lab
    	exercises to be performed on a computer.
>>> I agree where it is relevant.  But, case studies can be used in instances
>>> where it is not practical or possible to design a lab exercise, or can
>>> conclude in a lab exercise where practical.
    	In order for case studies to be useful at all, the personal
    	dynamics needs of the course require at least a dozen students, so
    	that the shy people in the class can sink into their comfortable
    	bacgrounds letting the less-shy do the work; and you have enough
    	groups that you can compare notes.  Unfortunately, we rarely get
    	many people in a class.  My class had a total for four students,
    	none of whom wanted to work on the case studies.
>>> I taught a quite a few 3 and 4 person classes and know how deadly they
>>> can be.  I viewed it as my personal challenge to engage the students.
>>> More often than not I could.

    I tried to follow along with what the instructor guide said to do, but
    found that my students really wanted some VMS in their VMS course, so
    we shined the case studies, sped through the "Student Workbook", and
    concentrated on the lab exercise stuff.
>>> It would be beneficial to know what lab exercises we should put into
>>> the VMS workbook.
    In short, the way I made this new class successful was to deliver the
    old class this was supposed to replace.
    
    Now, I realize, in an ideal world, all of these concerns are one that
    should have been discussed before the book went to print (You mentioned
    your discomfort with the lack of instructor participation), but we
    don't work in an ideal situation.  The instructors are constantly told
    that they "should have made their comments known in the notes file
    earlier" and we keep trying (unsuccessfully) to convince  course
    development that the notesfiles are not a good forum for the type of
    interaction required.
>>> What is your proposed alternative to notes files?  Also, are you given
>>> prep time to prepare for  teaching new courses?  Wouldn't review be
>>> a good way of preparing? (yes, I know that the timing isn't always right,
>>> but there must be some creative ways to make it work)

    You see, instructors have this problem:  we teach for a living.  From
    approximately 8:30am to 5:00pm, we are in the classroom.  We don't have
    the luxury of reading notesfiles.  We go to a customer site for a week,
    and when we come back there are 45 new ALLIN1 messages (most of which
    get handled during our lunch time>.  Not to mention the fact that most
    of us have (or would like to have) a life away from Digital during the
    weekends (when we aren't on airplanes> and evenings.
>>> This problem is not peculiar to instructors.  Ask the developer about it!

    So posting notes telling us where we can find the suggested course does
    us no good:  the company recently increased the number of weeks we
    should be on platform, which means that if I have a choice of spending
    my week reading up on a new  course, or being in a classroom earning
    money for the company (and thereby increasing my course-weeks count to
    help improve my next evaluation> guess which one I'm going to choose.
>>> This is part of the issue I will raise
    
    <Of course, when the discussion of the course is in a locked conference,
    this does have a tendency to discourage participation further>
>>> It would have taken one mail message for you to get access.  But,
>>> in the future, I want to use this conference for the security course.

    Typically, the only time an instructor can make the time to read a
    conference is when he/she is starting to get ready to teach the course,
    and is looking to colleagues for assistance (Which made your response
    to my request for help sting a little more: 
    	me:  Help
    	you: It's a good course!
    I am sure this was not the intent of your words, but since we only see
    the letters, and have no voice, the reader's perception of the words is
    all.  This is another problem with using notes)
>>> This absolutely was not my intent!  At the time you asked who you might
>>> talk to about the course, there was only one person who taught the course
>>> and I gave you his name.  That note is posted .-some.  I don't know what
>>> else I could have told you.
    
    In fact, the only reason I am taking time (at home, and  when I should be
    studying for my next new class) in finally answering the comments was
    because in the last few weeks I have gotten several calls from
    instructors around the country basically asking "So how did you get it
    to work?"  And I keep telling them the same thing I listed here:  I
    gave them back the course they were expecting:  the old one.
>>> Again, I appreciate you taking the time.  
    tom
    

    
    Re: .17, .20
    
    The problems inherent in the instructor review process have been
    endlessly debated both here and in other forums for years.  I think
    most of us would like to be able to add constructively to the course
    development process in a timely way; but, with the existing mechanism,
    most of us aren't going to be able to do it.  Most of us will, however,
    have to teach the resultant courses anyway.  Lots of times I've come
    back from being on the road for consecutive weeks only to find notes
    indicating that the time to participate in a course review have come and
    gone -- and I'm certainly not alone in this.  So, I'm real sorry this
    makes the job of developing courses more difficult.  It also makes the
    job of delivering them in the years that follow the development process
    more difficult as well.  As far as the case study debate goes.  From
    the point of view of many of us out here in the outer solar system, we
    were asked about this, we indicated our preference, we were ignored.  
    Now, when some of us object to that little sequence, we're imagining a
    conspiracy.
    
    Mark Thorne

    re: .21
    
    The tone of the notes that I have been reading around case studies have
    been: "We said we didn't want case studies, but they have been getting
    rammed down our throats anyways because they are someones pet project".
    
    I was simply saying that this is not the case in the security course.
    For better or for worse, the model we employed to develop reusable
    materials made case studies seem to be the most sensable approach to
    engaging the students in a practical exerise.
    
    I have gotten a pretty good picture of why courses are not being
    reviewed.  I understand that most instructors would like to review new
    materials.  As I said in an earlier reply, I plan to elevate this
    issue.

    Re: .22
    
    I'd be delighted to have the review issue elevated.  It's been done
    before, but hopefully you can convince the upper food chain where
    others have failed.  As for the tone of the notes, you quoted one of my
    notes specifically.  The fact is that these case studies are being used
    over protests in the field.  That they happen not to be an individual's
    pet project doesn't change anything.  Case studies are now appearing in 
    courses beyond the security course.  I've heard about reuseability now 
    for years, but I haven't seen any evidence of that benefitting those of 
    us in the classroom.  So you're saying that the issues of modularity and 
    reuseability, both issues aimed at making course development easier, 
    are the reasons for this "for better or worse" choice you folks have made.  
    I do believe I understand now.
    
    Mark Thorne

    
    
    If the *case studies* included in the course materials were done well,
    they might be usuable.  The simple fact is, in this case, that they are
    abominable.  I would be embarrassed to present them to intelligent
    customers/students.  They read like some 6th grade short story (and one
    that isn't very well written, at that).
    
        GJD  

    We have not had a lot of experience in writing case studies.  I know
    that the developer for security tried very hard to do the best thing
    she could.  I would love to be able to do what Buck described in his
    Microsoft experience.  If, somehow, we can get the review time issue
    sorted out, I know you can help us a lot.  I do plan to go to the top
    in the US to work this issue.
    
    Modularity and reusability is going to be more and more prevalent in
    the future.  The trend towards "do more with less" is expected to
    continue.  That is why we need feedback so badly that is geared towards
    helping to make new and non-traditional approaches workable from both a
    development and a delivery point of view.

    
    
    I know this has been *said* over and over and over again in this and
    other conferences, but I'll say it once more:
    
    Until course development will provide people like my manager
    compensation for *FUNDED REVIEW TIME*, the types of reviews that are
    needed simply aren't going to happen.  Instructor metrics are on the
    rise. The number of course weeks that we are to teach and the number of
    new courses that we are to teach are increasing and, it seems,
    preparation time is a real premium these days.  Add to that the
    necessity to keep current on the products we already teach (for which
    preparation time usually isn't allowed at all) and the inscreased
    travel load we seem to be having these days and you *might* get an
    understanding as to why we (the instructors) don't participate in
    reviews as you development folks would desire.  Something has to give,
    and, contrary to what some people might have you believe, instructors
    do have  lives to lead!  8-)
    
        GJD

    Greg,
    
    Course development doesn't have funding to give.  It works like
    this....
    
    1. The customer training geographies and the service businesses provide
    funding for specific curricula.
    
    2. Product managers develop plans for using this funding to generate
    courses and provide budgets to course development.
    
    3. Course development builds the courses.  Sometimes there is funding
    for one instructor to teach the pilot.  That instructor is also
    expected to provide a thorough review.  However, this is not always the
    case. 
    
    Course developers are being squeezed the same way instructors are.  So
    are product managers for that matter.  Something has to give.

    Re: last couple of notes...
    
      The problems with instructor participation in the course review game
    seem to center on various metrics and the almighty dollar.  From a Unit
    Manager's perspective, one can either get the rather small dollars for
    an instructor doing a funded review, or get bigger dollars for having
    that same instructor teach a customer course.  If there are courses to be
    taught, there's no contest; keep the instructor on platform.  If
    there's no courses to teach, it means there are idle instructors that
    become targets for downsizing.  Rarely is there any room in this little
    dance for reduced funding.
      From an instructor scheduling perspective, there are even more
    problems.  If funded review means there needs to be, say, four weeks
    where the instructor provides course review, those four weeks are
    always spread over a couple of months in a non-uniform and
    unpredictable way, following the completion of the various modules.
    This makes scheduling that instructor's non-review time difficult or 
    impossible.
      From the instructor's point of view, there have been numerous
    instances in the past where the instructor's input has been ignored.
    Needless to say, this results in a poorer quality course, wasted
    instructor time, and an instructor with an attitude.
      As an instructor, I have been watching this notesfile generally and
    this topic specifically with some interest.  Watching the instructor 
    protests over the misuse of case studies being dismissed makes me feel
    less than eager to participate in a review where my recommendations
    could be similarly dismissed or ignored.  As long as the development of
    courses is performed with instructors being given an ancillary role,
    and as long as the field metrics discourage dedicated participation in 
    this entire process, this will continue to be a broken system.
    
    Mark Thorne

    Mark, the instructor protests over missuse of case studies are not
    being dismissed by me.  Again, some of the same things that are driving
    insturctor scheduling and utilization are driving courses to be
    developed differently.  Things are going to change over the next few
    years.
    
    I want to use quality case studies where it is the appropriate thing to
    do, and there are times when it is appropriate.  As I said in previous
    notes, unfortunately, we don't have the ability to do things the way
    that Buck described microsoft university does them.  But, I would like
    to learn how to do a better job.  We seem to be at an impass over how
    to involve instructors to make the best of situations that are not
    ideal.  
    
    Tom's note (a few back) said something like "For the past ten years we
    have been getting materials like .........."  The bottom line is that
    things are changing and we all have to accept the changes.  The one
    thing that I can tell you is that I would have been in heaven if I had
    the kind of materials that people complain about in this conference
    when I was an instructor.  If you want to see real garbage, look at
    what was available in 1977.  Now that is not an excuse for not
    providing the best we have with what we have to work with.  But put
    things in perspective.
    
    

  RE: .27

    Jack, it really sounds like there is something 'broken' where you get
  the funding.  Maybe this isn't a politically smart thing to do, but your
  group should REFUSE to develop a product without appropriate funding or
  appropriate time or both.

    Instructor's metrics are part of the problem.  Most of us cannot make
  our own schedules--we can to some extend, but the managers generally have
  that as their responsibility.  Problem is, when the managers got together
  to decide on these 'metrics' and corporate sent down the new "goal" for
  our on-platform time, course reviews are NOT in there.  There is no time
  for discretionary work, and even if there was, performance reviews and
  excellence awards have specific targets for 'utilized' weeks -- the more
  the better.  On the flip side, there are measurements for our "other
  activities" and if documented, course reviews can be a positive input 
  at review time.
    
    Course writers are sometimes given extensive reviews in Notes and these
  aren't used--see the discussion regarding the recent update of the Sys
  Net 3 course (Sorry Perry, it's like picking at a scab, isn't it).  There
  were numerous notes posted on this course and these didn't get put in the
  course, although these have been in the conference for about a year.  

    Instructor's are partly to blame.  How many of us have taught a course,
  complained to co-workers how bad it was and didn't give constructive
  review or criticism in the conferences or to the course writers by mail!?
  I'm guilty!  Even as much as I *do* get to review, I can't handle the
  reviews of all the courses I teach, so I pick my 'strengths' to review.

    I just finished teaching the "NEW" Programming in C course -- yuck!  
  Lots of the same errors from the old course, several errors introduced
  because the programs weren't tested and ugly formatting (see page 11-2
  for formatting ugliness, program on 12-20 won't compile, 3-12, example
  was edited and the date changed without re-testing -- output error,
  etc.), but I don't have time to review and post information on all of the
  courses I teach, so I complain about them, hoping the developers and
  other instructors will look it over.

    We do need to get one item clearly understood, it takes course
  development *TOO* long to turn around corrected material once the errors
  are pointed out.  To continually teach around the errors or take 'dings'
  on my SOFs because of the errors puts me in a bad situation.  So, to 
  eliminate this problem we (instructors in the field) DEVELOP OUR OWN
  COURSES OR HANDOUTS.  We shouldn't have to do this.  We should be able to
  get updated pages from the course writer on Easynet and hand them out or
  insert the correct pages or even replace entire chapters.  The course
  developers should have FUNDED time built into the original development
  project for at least 1 rewrite or a few extra weeks to work up addendums. 

    Jack, this is an issue that has existed for *TOO* long.  Once a course
  is 'on the shelf' the course development group 'divorces' themselves from
  the responsibility for the course until they get more funding.  But we
  need to make changes and updates to the material on a continuing basis
  and we can't get access to the files, they are still 'held' by course
  development.  If this is to remain the case then a course developer (or
  other assigned person) should be responsible for the maintenance of the
  material for it's entire shelf life, PERIOD.
  
  $

    
    
    Well said, Buck!
    
    Bye the way, I've got a C Programming Course you can use if you want
    to!  It might not look as pretty as the materials from course
    development, but I guarantee you all the programs work!
    
        GJd

    Re .29
    
    I understand that things are not ideal, and probably won't ever be
    ideal.  I'm really not expecting that.  And I understand that in 1977
    things were different and that course materials were different and
    that they were doubtlessly worse.  I also know that things are
    changing -- and probably not for the better.  But, we have never had
    the competition for the training business that we do today.  We have
    perfectly sound internal reasons for our course materials problems. 
    Customers, then, have their own perfectly sound reasons for going to our
    competitors who are cheaper and who don't have our course materials
    problems; and they're doing just that.  My complaint is that we are,
    in a lot of cases, missing the boat on the basics of selecting and
    developing courses.  That part doesn't seem to be improving.  Instead
    we are looking for new techniques to employ in course design when we
    have not yet mastered the basics.  This seems a lot like learning
    surgery before we've quite figured out anatomy.
    
    Mark Thorne

How do you instructors find the time to develop your own courses when you don't 
have the time to review materials during development?

Dave.

    Re: .33
    
    If you really think about it, an instructor at a training center can do
    incremental work on a course or a course supplement whever they find
    the time.  It can be made to fit into the rest of their schedule.  When
    a course is being written by the development community there is usually
    about a one week window where review of a given module is invited.  If
    that window doesn't coincide with the other demands, such as teaching
    on the road, the instructor misses it.  The course development sequence
    is not geared to instructors' schedule demands. So to answer your question;
    yes, you're missing something.  Thanks for asking.
    
    Mark Thorne

  RE: .33
  
  Your key phrase: "...during development?"
                       ^^^^^^
  
  As the previous note mentioned, this is the biggest problem, fitting our
  schedules to the development schedule.  If we end up writing our own
  material, it is usually after 2 or 3 unuccessful teaches of the corporate
  material.  Then, after several months of "I've got a free 1/2 hour today,
  I'll write up a few supplement pages to use while I teach the Corporate 
  Course" and then finally "I've got so many supplements, and I teach 85%
  of my course from the supplements, I might as well finish it up this
  weekend and use this as my course."  Yes, it might take an entire year to
  develop the class, but often the corporate courses aren't updated nearly
  often enough (for an example see the DECwindows/Motif course -- 2 years
  and it is STILL crappy, lots of typos, mistakes, out-dated material, 
  redundancy with DW2, etc.).
  
  $

    
    
    After reading .33, I am more convinced than ever that "course
    development folks" and "instructor folks" live on different planets.
    
    ***********
    
    Sure I've written my own courses, but usually as a part of the
    preparation to teach the course, or, as Mark said, incrementally over a
    period of weeks, even months.  My C programming course developed over a
    period of probably 2 years or more.  Each time I taught the course I
    re-used examples that worked well the last time, added new examples.
    re-arranged the topics, until I was happy with it.  Often, this
    involved "personal time" to do the duplication, etc.
    
    I agree with Buck, also, as to the quality of the DECwindows Motif
    Programming course, but, as I'm sure Buck has done, we *make bad
    courses work*".  That course, for example, only had, if I remember
    correctly, 4 or 5 programming examples included in it (and a couple of
    those didn't even compile when they came off the distribution).  So, I,
    and several other people, over time, have put together significant
    handouts to *make the course work*.
    
    Face it, our (instructor) butts are on the line when it comes to the
    QA's for the courses we teach.  Are you folks in development aware of
    the fact that the section of the QA's that deals with the quality of
    the course materials *counts against us*?  That's why we do what we
    have to to *make the course work*.  Unfortunately, I believe, sometimes
    course development makes our job more difficult when, because of the
    quality of the course, we have to do *your work* and ours.  Most
    courses are passable, and require only minor augmentation, but some
    require LOTS.
    
       Greg

    This week I am teaching the "Managing OpenVMS System and Network
    Security".  In my view I would be at risk if I used the corporate
    materials because I believe that the "case studies" are inadequate
    and the course content is lacking in overall depth and content.
      
    My solution was to edit a *.PS Instructor Guide for the VMS Security
    Course (3 day) removing the "internal use only" page footers, print
    single sided, remove instructor pages, make a double sided master, and
    then make copies for the class (thanks to our secretary for locating
    the pre-punched three hole paper).
     
    Next I made copies of the "the OLD Network Security Course".
     
    What I now have is a course that will produce good results.  I have
    the details on how to secure a system and network, very little fluff.
      
    The obvious question - if I was willing to give up part of my Sat AM
    at the copier, why not just communicate these items to the developers?
    
      1. I believe that most of the changes were dictated in order to save
         costs, and that my effort would not result in any of the changes
         needed to make a better course.
      
      2. At the November 89 IPF, several instructors communicated a number
         of problems with the then "Network Manager II" course. We spoke
         in a constructive and professional manner.  Months later the
         course was released (please excuse me but the word should be
         escaped) with ALL of the problems we described. Had it not been for 
         some material I located on PHAROS that course would have failed.
      
      3. When I taught "Programming in C" I had to purchase a text "Teach
         Yourself C".  The "course materials" section came in at 4.85 and
         several students thanked me for having them "buy there own copy".
     
    These types of problems are not new.  I know of several efforts to
    inform various levels of management on how to fix them.
     
    Arnold Tarling.
    

    
    >>These types of problems are not new.  I know of several efforts to
    >>inform various levels of management on how to fix them.
    
       None of which have, it seems, had any impact.  The current mechanism
    to develop courses simply doesn't work.  It isn't timely.  I find it
    absolutely ludicrous that the course materials aren't available
    on-line, so the materials can be "fixed" and duplicated immediately
    upon the discovery of a problem, rather than the n months turn-around
    we have now.  We *are* a computer company, you know.  We *do* have
    desktop publishing capabilities, you know.  We just haven't been able
    to figure out how to use them, evidently.
    
        GJD

In my opinion, an instructor who ditches a corporate course in favor of his or
own material should be shown the door immediately. I'm surprised this hasn't
happened already.

Perry

  And if a course writer can't write a course without obvious errors,
  typos, examples that don't work, etc. they should either be made to teach
  the course for the rest of their life, or until they get it fixed...or
  better yet, they should find a job they can do with success, because
  their skill is NOT is writing good courses!!
  
  Perry, get your head out of the mud and keep your comments regarding what
  you think should happen to my career out of this conference!!
  
  $

  >>Perry, get your head out of the mud and keep your comments regarding what
  >>you think should happen to my career out of this conference!!
    
    You got that right, Buck!
    
    There is *NO* requirement, according to my sources, that instructors
    use the corporate materials.  It might be advantageous to do so so as
    to ensure consistency across training centers.  If I had my druthers,
    we'd stop using corporate materials all together and (the instructors
    would) write their own.  In the the long run, I bet it would be
    cheaper, the quality would be better, and the necessary changes and
    updates would be done in a much more timely fashion.
    
    

Greg, you're probably right about cheaper and faster. I don't know about
quality (depends on your definition)...you mention consistency, which could 
be a problem, though I'm sure it could be worked out.

I do tend to forget that developers and instructors don't work for the same
organization, so I suppose our group has no right to tell you guys what
to teach. However, if I were a funder who had just spent $60k and 6 months
developing a course, only to have some instructor say, "No thanks, it 
stinks, I'll just use this course I wrote five years ago," I'd be pretty
pissed.

I do agree that development could be more responsive.

Something I'm trying to set up for Sysnet is a way to update the courses on 
the fly as various problems come up. Part of that process will start 
immediately with the V6 updates...we'll be posting individual maps for review 
as we finish them, and we'll be posting an ASCII version here in the conference 
(Bonnie's idea) which may help a bit, since it should only take a few minutes 
to read and comment on any given map.

I'd also like to set up a process where, as field comments come in during the
year, corrections/additions are made immediately. It makes sense from a 
production standpoint since the materials are printed fresh for each class...
as long as the change isn't radical, we can just fix the problem and submit
a new master to to print house. We'll have to use an 'instructor newsletter'
or something to make certain everyone knows about the change.

I posted .-2 partly to point out how ridiculous all this name-calling is
getting. Coming into the office every day is hard enough lately...the last 
thing we need are personal attacks with the morning coffee, although I must
admit I'm always anxious in the morning to see if things have gotten any 
juicier...

And Buck...I *was* stuck in the mud (driveway)this morning...part of the reason 
for my bad mood. Just wait 'til I have you in the sights of my B50...

P

    re: the last few (and boy what a brouhaha I started!):
    
    There actually ARE training centers where the instructors are required
    to use the corporate-issue materials;  I work for one.  In the past we
    have had instructors get ill in the middle of the week, and to have
    a new instructor in the middle of the week is tough enough on the
    students, to have one who has never seen the handout the students are
    used to is difficult on EVERYONE.
    
    re: -.1
>>However, if I were a funder who had just spent $60k and 6 months
>>developing a course, only to have some instructor say, "No thanks, it 
>>stinks, I'll just use this course I wrote five years ago," I'd be pretty
>>pissed.
    
    This argument seems to neglect a basic problem: if the course DOES
    stink, why should I be stuck teaching something I know to be inferior
    just because someone back east has WASTED money developing it.  It
    seems to me you would be blaming the wrong guy.
    
    tom 

    
    Re: a few back...
    
    The course development definition of quality and the delivery
    definition of quality are NOT the same.  The different sets of metrics 
    reinforce this.  Maybe the solution of field-developed courses done out 
    of self-defense isn't the optimal way of getting the job done, but it does 
    get the job done.  It is the instructors who are ultimately responsible
    for the successful delivery of these courses; not the course developers,
    not the funders, the instructors!  I think most instructors would agree
    that we'd all like it better if there wasn't a need to do this;  there
    are already enough barriers to conducting a successful course that we
    routinely confront without needing any more.  But when I read a note
    from the development community, like the note a few back, about canning
    instructors who don't use corporate materials, and I think about the
    mindset portrayed by that sentiment, I know that instructors are
    probably going to have to write a few more courses to get the job done.
    
    Mark Thorne

    
    I'd love to see more instructors get involved in course development.
    Buck helped out on the troubleshooting course not too long
    ago, and from what I hear that worked out pretty well. I wanted
    to get someone from the field to help with this last pass on Sysnet,
    but it didn't work out.
    
    I've said this in the Sysnet notes string, but I'll say it again;
    if you have material that you think should be in a course, send
    it to the developer or post it here. I for one am looking for
    decent labs...the ones we have are getting quite tired. The same
    goes for material that you think ought to be cut.
    
    Now, back to the battle...
    
    Perry

    
    I was in search of the System Security Features (A765E) course lab
    files when I accidentally stumble across this battle field,  and can't
    help but spent the entire night (w/ the objection of my wife) browsing
    through all 45 replies so far entered.
    
    I just taught the VMS System Security Features (A756E-SG-0003) course,
    my first teach, last week and realized that it was half-heartedly
    updated to 5.4 (while other courses are going into V6).  This week as I
    am teaching Sysnet I, a considerably lighter load, I decided I will
    search for *better* materials on courses that I have been and will be
    teaching.  Seems that I held my hopes too high.
    
    Sharing the sentiments of our counterparts in the other end of the
    glode,  we as instructors have been made to deal with this dilemma of
    materials not up to the standards of expectation for too long.  Evident
    not just from the complains that was lodge in this particular note, but
    directly from SOF's that was completed by our *paying customers*.  I
    for one also spent considerable amount of my own time developing
    materials that are replacements or supplements to corporate materials. 
    I wouldn't blame Mark for flaring up on the comment that "instructors
    who ditches the corporate materials... should be shown the door
    immediately."  Such an unprofessional remark should never be allowed to
    finds its way into an open forum like this.  (See, you got the attention
    of the entire world.)
    
    While I was still emersed in the first 20 or so replies the idea was
    clear that both parties, the instructors and the developers, don't see
    eye-to-eye.  RE:.39 struck the exact note that I was humming,  SWITCH
    SHOES and try for size!  Instructors in Asia are as much busy as you
    guys in the western hemisphere, participation in course review process
    is only possible when we are not teaching, and how often are we NOT
    teaching?  Right here we have the even shorter end of the deal due to
    the geographic distance.  It takes us longer to realize there's an
    update, longer to access the updated materials,  longer to even just
    read notes.  Personally I felt helpless.  Back to my point,  why did we
    persistently shunt the idea of TEACH WHAT YOU DEVELOPED?  Clearly,
    division of labor was not working for us before and is still not
    working today.  Why can't we work out a model such that people who
    developed a course will act as instructors until the bugs in the
    materials are iron out,  meanwhile instructors will switch roles and
    do development on new courses.  Then they all switch roles again! Call
    it my wildest fantasy, but apparently the skills and capabilities are
    there.  Course developers today who have the ability to put knowledge
    into black and white, could be safely assumed that they have the
    ability to read what they've wrote.  On the other hand,  instructors
    worldwide (now I can use the word 'worldwide') has been known to do
    their own development one way or another.  This will also provide the
    opportunity to END THIS DISPUTE and for both parties to see the
    situation in the other's SHOES...
    
    
    Wong Man Ching
    (Digital Singapore)
    
    BTW, set aside my amazement on the fact that the Security Features
    course lab book assumed that numerous files are "in the SECURITY$SOLN
    directory" while no such files can be found anywhere in the network,  I
    decided to create such unfounded files (in very crude form), as in many
    other cases, to make the course *work*.  Now that it's there,  any
    taker?
    
    RE.36(?) Author NITTY::DIERCKS,  Lab files for Prog in C sounds great, 
    my colleage would have loved it for his teach last week.

    Ooops, wrong quotes for RE:'s.
    
    RE:39 was the forgotten note
    RE:40 by $ (Buck?) was the one w/ struct my note for switching shoes.
    
    
    Man Ching

    RE: past 2
    
    The current OpenVMS Security Course is EY-L585E.  It is at V5.5.  There
    are no courses currently at V6.0.  Development is underway.
    
    
    

    RE:-1
    
    Thanks Jack.  This is what I needed, UPDATEs. If I'm not following this
    particular note probably we'll never know, considering there are tons
    of notes conference that I need to go thru.
    
    And it is exactly my point,  if instructors on your end of the world
    have a hard time getting latest materials,  how long do you think we in
    this part of the world takes to get it?
    
    BTW, since we were never told that A756E retired, the guy who did the
    scheduling just put whatever we've been doing.  Fortunately out of my 11
    students none complains about the version being out-dated.
    
    NOW,  I would surely appreciate if anyone would post a pointer to the
    EY-L585E materials (SG, IG, *and* Lab Files) in the net.  Or else it
    will take us THREE to FOUR MONTHS to order a set of material.
    
    Another question, I have DECnet Security coming up,  could anyone tell
    me what's the latest course code (Phase IV security, not Phase V)?  At
    the same time, course materials, SG, IG, *and* Lab Files?
    
    Thanks a lot Jack.  I sure hope we all have more time to read notes and
    exchange info.
    
    
    Man Ching :-)))) (very happy man)
                                      

    I would like to comment this discussion about course developpement
    with a French Instructor View :
    
    1/ i feel that the most important problem is that courses are generally
    NOT developped by a subject expert or at least thru the collaboration of 
    a subject expert, a technical writer and an instructor.
    
    I am not saying the course developpers are not good technically but 
    by  expert i mean a real corporate expert (or "guru") of the subject
    
    for instance 
    
    	VMS Internals could be developped or at least reviewed by a member
    of VMS engineering
    
    	VMS Performance by a member of the VMS Perf group ... and so on
    
    This would solve a lot of problems because instructor reviews are great
    but 
    	-> each instructor can teach differently
    	-> French customers may be different from Australians
        -> generally an instructor review cannot be considered as a field
    	   review ... because most instructors' job is to teach courses with
    	   good customer feedback not to solve real customer problems 
           ( at least for most of their time ...)
    
    If you look at the VMS documentation set, i personnally think that most
    of the docs are great and probably reviewed by technical and field
    experts as defined before ?
    	
    2/ As many instructors said the course developpement process needs
    	to be modified ... Something should be considered in the new
    	process, that is a better collaboration between the different countries
    	Edu services and between different Digital groups developping
    	courses :
    
    	-> instead of having one developper develop the course and ten
    	   instructor waiting for it ( i mean in 10 countries) and when it
    	   is ready the ten instructors reviewing/modifying it (multiplied
    	   by the number of courses developped at the same time) (and
    	   complicated by the fact that an instructor generally teach
    	   more than one course )
    	  could it be possible to ...say...
    	   develop a corporate course by German Edu
    	   another by French Edu 
    	   with a "technical guru" review and a world-wide notes-file?
    
    	-> develop a process to transmit Engineering courses to Edu ...
    	   The countries can't afford sending an instructor to Maynard
    	   for every course developped by the MAET .
    
    3/ The course files should be accessible on the NET to all the
    	instructors community worldwide :
    
    	--> the first means to avoid every instructor to create its own
    	handout or slides and so on is not to hide the files but to create
    	at first a high quality student guide :
    	nobody would rewrite VAX/VMS internals and Data structures right ?
    
    	--> if the course is of poor quality, the instructors are going
            to waste much more time to create or modify the student guide
    	   using "hardware & photocopier" cut and paste and other antic 
    	   techniques ...
    	   As somebody said we are a computer company, right ?
    
        --> having the files can help quickly adapt a course to a specific
    	    country or to a specific customer ...
            SOMEBODY SAID WE SHOULD BE CUSTOMER ORIENTED ...
    
	Any comments ?
    [Homi...]

    A little feedback on your comments....
    
    Subject matter experts do review the courses and work with the course
    developers.  There is also collaboration with the documentation writers
    and there will be more in the future because course developers and
    docuemntation writers work for the same managers in the same
    organization.
    
    You use the security course as an example.  We paid a lot of money to
    have a subject matter expert involved and the developer worked with a
    number of security experts.  Performance was done in the same way.
    We got very litte instructor review unfortunately, until after the
    fact.
    
    As far as who writes training, we are open to distributed authoring. 
    It has been done to some extent with some courses.  Courses would still
    be project managed by course development if we took the approach you
    suggest.
    
    Until now, services training and MAET and some of the other training
    organizations have been separate groups in different organizations. 
    There is currently a move going on to pull all training into one
    organization and maybe what you suggest will become possible.
    

    
    
>    Subject matter experts do review the courses and work with the course
>    developers.  
    
    I was not using the security course as an example , i don't teach
    that one.
    
    But we can speak about the perf course which i have taught many times.
    The course developper is doing a very good job but i do not have the
    impression (may be i am wrong) that she is a member of the VMS perf
    group or a consultant with 10+ years of experience of tuning on customer
    sites. For instance, there are almost no decent labs in this course
    and if you look at the VMS perf course notes files you 'll see that she
    is asking to instructors if they have any good labs to include in the
    course...
    I am not blaming  her ... I am not a member of VMS perf group either
    and would probably do the same thing. But if the course was really
    developped in collaboration with the VMS perf group i guess they could
    build real labs based on real data ...
    I simply feel that generally  Digital is not taking seriously enough the
    developpement of corporate courses (if you compare with what is done by
    microsoft in a previous reply). And even more than developpement the 
    maintenance of courses (how many student guides take as examples
    the VAX 780 ? ...)    
    
    [Homi...]
                      
    

    re .52 I can't speak for the OpenVMS performance group, but I know
    they're short-handed right now and would not expect them to be able to
    take on a course development project. The VMS performance group of ~7-8
    years ago was quite relieved to get out of the training business and
    turn the VMS performance course over to Ed. Services. Engineering
    groups rarely have the resources to devote to course development.
    
    I recently heard Microsoft is getting out of the training business --
    is that true?
    
    					Val

    RE: .-2
    
    I know that the developer of performance tries to work with engineering
    as much as possible.  Thinking about performance expertise, I believe
    that we will get more expert help from field performance service
    deliverers and we will look at doing that when the performance course
    is updated.
    
    RE: .-1 Microsoft appears to be getting out of thet training business
    based on everything I have seen.  It looks like they are doing
    development but not training delivery.

    Homi makes a very good point when he criticizes the laboratory
    exercises for the OpenVMS Performance Management course.  In fact the
    lab exercises were not changed in the last update due to lack of time.
    
    I very much want to improve the lab exercises the next time around. In
    the notes files and in various discussions with instructors, I have
    heard statements about how many lab exercises instructors have written
    themselves and how great these exercises are.  I have asked instructors
    to share these exercises with me to save the company time and money. 
    The response has not been overwhelming.
    
    Fortunately this is not the only avenue for improving the lab
    exercises for performance and for troubleshooting.  I have been
    following the notes conferences and reading the STARS database to seek
    out real problems.  Good problems for lab exercises must be:
    
    	Hardware independent
    	Realistic
  	Easy to duplicate in a limited hardware environment
    
    I will certainly try to get help from VMS development, but I really
    don't expect much on lab exercises. I intend to continue to pay
    attention to comments and contributions from the instructors.  

    TO ._1
    
    I think the key point is realistic ...
    I guess that if the instructors don't want to share their labs it is
    not to keep them secret but it is because they feel that customers
    who pay for a performance course deserve more than a
    matrix multiply using the wrong index or things like that (which are 
    fine but not enough ...)

    TO .51
    
    You didn't answer about the availaibility of the files on the net..
    
    If for any reason the sources files can't be on the net,
    would it be possible to keep the instructor guides and associated
    slides on line in .PS ?
    (Possibly sliced by chapters)
    (for the active courses)
    
    I mean not only during the review but even when the course is on the
    shelf.
    
    I know we can order intructor kits but when you have to prep or reprep
    a course quickly, it is very frustrating to wait a week or more ...
    
    ...
    

    I have no problems with putting the course materials on the net in .PS
    form.  They are also available to you through Niemejen (sp?)

>>    I have no problems with putting the course materials on the net in .PS
>>    form.  They are also available to you through Niemejen (sp?)
    
    Eehh... that's Nijmegen (pronounced Ny-may-gun), in The Netherlands.
    
    Contact Ad Heeffer @JGO to get registered as an authorised user, and to
    get hold of the Master Retrieval Tool sources. Once registered the
    Master Retrieval Tool will allow you to get access to any electronic
    master you want (IG, SG a.o.) within several hours. Excellent service
    which is used a lot in Europe.
    
    Rob

    RE 157.52
    
    About the question of lab's used in the performance course.
    I offered a long time ago to distributed the performance cases of Piet
    Hompus. 
    I've teached the course several times with this cases and it is
    simulating some heavy I/O, CPU, Paging, memory problems etc. FPL and
    MPL problkems.
    Which you can set-up with a menu.
    
    When I put this in the performance notes conferences there were 28
    replies for the cases so far.
    You can still use them. With a little uinderstanding of the OpenVMS
    V6.0 memory changes they are still a good help.
    
    I recall if you want them, please send a mail to:
    
    NWGEDU::WIERSMA or Arjen Wiersma @UTO
    
    and I will set a saveset available.
    
    For the rest we know the performance course material is not the state
    of the art. There some reasons. Please let's us our synergy to get the
    job done.
    In Holland we have some extra handouts. For example we ordered all the
    parameters on there function and explain there mutual proportion. It's
    in the saveset as well.
    
    Some way to get it.
    
    With kindly regards 
    Arjen Wiersma

>>    I recently heard Microsoft is getting out of the training business --
>>    is that true?

As someone who is in regular contact with Microsoft - here's the definitive
answer (for today anyhow!!!) I got this straight from Blair Allsop who is our
(DLS) contact inside Microsoft ( he was high up in MSU before their reorg)...

1. MSU no longer exists - it's replaced by Microsoft Educational Services.
MSU was a profit centre, MS E.S. is a cost (ie break even) operation.
MSU took its direction from it's own Sales and Marketing folks - they built
and delivered what made money. MS ES will take direction from MS itself -
they'll concentrate on supporting MS strategic product directions.

2. MS ES is moving to a "leveraged" training model (like Novell). They will
define levels of certification (actually this will be done by their Solution
Provider Group), then define and build/acquire courseware to inculcate the
objectives required by these levels. This courseware will be made available
under licence to the Training Solution Provider Partners (we are one of these).
They will also provide T-Prep (aka TTT) services to their partners. Testing for
certification will be via Drake etc. [ Basically , it's the Novell model]

3. As of 1st September, MS ES will no longer deliver courses to customers (this
is in the US - may take longer in other countries). All their resources will be
directed to course development and T-prep activities. Any customer calls they
get for training will be referred to Training Solution Providers (this is
already happening in the US - apparently the US group got 50 referred call s
last week - and they've only jsut started!)

We met with the folks from MS ES earlier this week and it seems as if there are
some interesting possibilities for cooperation - I'm going to propose our
building some courses and licencing them back to MS for a royalty!


Any questions?

Andy

> Any questions?

-	What about Europe?

-	Is there an "official" Dec interface for MSU issues?

I am really interested in any MS related training issues (I mean MSU training,
certification, training about MS products, and so on): I think this point is
really important, and will be more and more important in the future. 

Can I suggest to create a specific conference about PC related training
(DEC, Microsoft, Novell, and so on)? I think we urgently need tools to share
information in the PC training arena...

Regards

						Mario

  There is already a Microsoft Certification conference for Instructors
  prepping for Certification -- see SOAEDS::MSU_INS_PREP, Hugh Wislon
  (SOAEDS::WILSON) is the moderator.
  
  There is also a (rather quiet) Novell certification conference found at
  SOAEDS::NOVELL_INS_PREP, Derrick Johnson (SOAEDS::DJohnson) is the
  moderator.
  
  There are a few other PC based conferences, but these two should be
  looked at first.
  
  $

Thank you very much for the information. I am sure it is usefull for other
people too.

>  There are a few other PC based conferences, but these two should be
>  looked at first.
  
Where can I find a list of such conferences?

Arrivederci
						Mario

Partial listing of PC conferences from EASYNOTES.LIS.  You can always get a 
current copy from my systems -- SOAEDS::SYS$PUBLIC:EASYNOTES.LIS.

Personal Computers and Workstations
-----------------------------------

APPLE Computers (Apple-II)      WONDER::APPLE_COMPUTERS			    1310
Amiga Home Computer		HYDRA::AMIGA				    1952
Apple Macintosh Forum		MORTAL::MACINTOSH			     492
Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC	MORTAL::POWERPC				    3969
DBASE II			AIMHI::DBASE				     823
DEC Portable PCs		AKOCOA::DECPC_PORTABLES			    3560
DECstations (Intel 80*86 based) GIADEV::DECSTATION			    2230
Digital Laptop PC Program	COWPOK::LAPTOP				    3925
IBM PC '93			RANGER::IBMPC-93			     987
MSWINDOWS			NOTED::MSWINDOWS			     602
MicroSoft Windows Examples	RANGER::MSWINDOWS_EXAMPLES		    3193
Microsoft ACCESS		BUMP::MSACCESS				    3762
NeXT, Inc.			DANGER::NEXT				    2112
Novell NetWare			RANGER::NETWARE				    3493
PARADOX Database Manager	SOJU::PARADOX				    3418
PATHworks User Forum		COWPOK::NETWORK				    3926
PDTs and recreational RT-11	VINO::PDT				     288
Portable Computers		RANGER::LAPTOPPC			     524
Texas Instruments Home Computer ROYALT::TI				     604
Word for Windows		BOOKIE::WINWORD				    3876
eXcursion for Windows (WINDX) 	NOTED::EXCURSION			    3246

    Back to the VMS security topic.
    
    Is L585E    (Managing openVMS system and network security) replacing 
    the aging A756E (VMS security features) ? Is the A756E obsolete ?
    
    From what I can judge, this course is about computer security in general, 
    I don't see any topic directly related to VMS. I see the two course
    as complementary. The L585 has a misleading title. It should be called
    "Computer and Networks Security" or something similar.
    
    I read this whole note string without finding an answer.
    
    
    -----
    I must say that I have the instructor guide only, i.e. not the course
    itself. (Due to Digital red tape, I will probably get it after I have
    finished teaching next week...)  
    
    

    L585E is indeed an OpenVMS course, although having only the IG, I can
    see how you came to the conclusion you did.  L585 is built from two
    pieces, a generic security seminar and OpenVMS content.  You need to
    have the complete kit for the course.  A756 is obsolete.
    

    Hi,
    
    I have the complete kit but in my opinion this kit is not usefull for
    teaching system manager how to secure their systems and network. The
    general stuff of part one is not very interesting for the system
    manager and part two with the VMS commands is not extended enough to
    secure the system and network.
    I think we need a course book which contains pure VMS and build up with
    cases how to build up the system and the network secure. It would be
    nice if at the end of the course the student is able to check all his
    action from a checklist.
    
    Ed Janssen
    Digital Learning Services
    Holland

    Thank you for your comments.  The course will be updated this year and
    your input will be used.  It is frustrating that we couldn't get
    instructor review while this course was being written and the feedback
    you have provided didn't come up during the pilot.

    And I would love to have time to review the new one for you (if it can
    be funded, so that I can really look at it first).
    
    tom
    who is teaching security this week, and has students beating him up
    because there is, in their words, lots of theory, and not enough VMS

    Tom,
    
    I have written a requirements document for the update of Security,
    Performance, Troubleshooting, and Building Dependable Systems.  One of
    the requirements is to beef up security with more practical content. 
    I'm not sure what the budget for each individual course will look like
    yet.  Performance has the highest priority, security is next.  I don't
    know yet if there will be sufficient funding for paid review and will
    certainly ensure that development knows you are interested if there is.
    
    Jack

    Jack,
    
    Even if it doesn't happen, thanks for trying.
    
    tom

    In Canada, we have resolved to add material from the old VMS security
    and DECnet security courses to make this course viable.
    
    To save us much redevelopment time and effort, has anyone already done
    a prcatical supplement for VMS security based on the old courses, 
    but tied in logically with the flow of the new one?
    
    Regards,
    Sandy Tipper
    DLS Canada (Toronto)

    
    
    I haven't taught the new course, but I think Marshall NITTY::SORKIN has
    -- maybe drop him a line.  He's *famous* for writing lots of handouts!
    
        Greg

    Well, the New version of the course has come out (to my surprise when
    my page numbers didn't match the students).  A lot of the information
    that used to be in the instructor guide is now in the students copy of
    the book,  and the actual MEAT of the old course, the VMS stuff, was
    removed to avoid the redundancy with the Sys Net String, and was
    replaced with:
    
    
    Nothing!
    
    Yes, there is absolutely no nutritional value left in this course.  I
    plan on photocopying the old Chapter 5 and giving that to the students.
    
    If anyone else has taught this course since its latest re-write, please
    let me known what you did to fill in this course.  Also, if there is
    anyone left from course development who was involved in the re-doing of
    this course, please let me know what your line of reasoning was.
    
    Thanks,
    
    tom

    Tom;
    
    My personal approach to this course is as follows:
    
    	1. Secure old "3 Day VMS Security Course Student Guide"
    
    	2. Secure old "2 Day Network Security Course Student Guide"
    
    	3. Go to copy machine, preferably with a good book, and make
           N number of copies of 1 and 2 above.  Or find someone else to
           make the copies.  Note: N = the number of students in the
           course.
    
    	4. Use "OLD" 3 day and 2 day course.  Many QA's reflect student
           approval of this action.
    
    Take care and good luck;
    Arnold
    

    G'Day
    
    	Well it's a new year and some months since the last entry in this
    string, so how about an update?
    
    Is anything being done to create a SECURITY course that meets the
    practical needs of our customers, or will we instructors (contractors
    if you prefer) still have to do a soft shoe shuffle to keep the
    students amused.
    
    We, Australia, have put this course on indefinate hold until a
    teachable version is produced. The alternative of writing our own
    material is starting to look like the only viable alternative.
    
    BobH.

	My name is Michael Archdeacon and I am the TPM (Training
Product Manager) for OpenVMS.  I wanted to take a moment to point
out changes to Digital that will require changes to how this
conference is used.  In addition, I want to mention the fact that
we are updating some of the OpenVMS courses.  Addressing the last
point first, those courses are:

VMS FOR OPERATOR - EYQ163EL0

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - EYL565EL0

MANAGING OPENVMS SYSTEM AND NETWORK SECURITY - EYL585EL0

	If you have feedback for the course development team on how
you would like to see this course updated, please send that feedback
to me at CAPNET::ARCHDEACON_M and post it in this note conference.
This new wrinkle is a perfect segue into the changes we need to
implement for this conference. 

	Changes in Digital have led to headcount decisions with
which we are all too familiar.  Course development has been affected
by downsizing and the fact is there are no course developers left to
routinely monitor this note conference.  For that reason, I proposed
that input on curriculum be both sent to me and posted here for all
instructors to see.  The salient point is that no course developers
are reading this conference unless they are actively working on an 
OpenVMS course.

	When we do have a course development project underway, this
conference will be used as it has been.  Course developers will post
their plans and their updated materials to be reviewed in this
conference and instructors are urged to participate in the course
update to whatever extent they can.

	Now back to the courses we are planning to update.  Mary Jo
Bader has requested that some instructors be involved as members of
the course update team.  This process is being defined at this time
but it is clear that the instructors assigned will be responsible
for acquiring other instructor's input.  This conference remains a
suitable venue for that input.

	One last point, as we prepare to update these courses, we
are aware that many have weak labs.  If you have developed your own
labs for these courses and tested them on your students, then those
labs are extremely valuable.  If you wish to share those labs with
your peers, please send them to me and I will see that the course
development team gets them.

>>>                                      This conference remains a
>>> suitable venue for that input.
    
    No offense, but this conference, or any notes conference is not a
    decent venue for comments about courses (The fact that this is the
    first time I have had time to scan this conference in weeks being an
    indication).  
    
    You pointed out that no course developers will be scanning this
    conference routinely.  Typically, the only time a VMS instructor has
    time to scan the conference is when he/she is preparing to teach the course
    (Which is too late for their comments to do any good).
    
    
    I'm not sure what the proper venue would be, but while this may not be
    it, it is better than nothing.
    
    tom

Hi,

I'm Ed Janssen from L.S. Holland, and I give the security course in a pure
practical way. 
The coursebook I use is the "OpenVMS Guide to System Security" (AA-Q2HLA-TE
VMS version 6.1). This is the most complete book I found. 
The students start on a system where only VMS V6.1 is installed but not
customized. 
After four days they build up a production system, with queues, DECnet, all
type of accounts, reachable via terminal servers, protected subsystem, security
auditing, parameter settings, making use of a security checklist developed by
me.
The security profiles of objects are teached and also build. All types of ACL
and identifiers are alsoteached and build. They also build a project
environment for developers, testers and project managers, using ACL's and
identifiers with attributes.
They implement an application with a database as a protected subsystem.
Security is set up and I do some breakins and attacks and they have to search
what has happened.
At the end of the course I check the set up of the system with DECinspect
Compliance Manager V2.3
I teach the students about the set up of DECinspect and they also have to modify
some settings in DECinspect.

The chapters I teach are:
First day
  Understanding system security (Chapter 1)
  OpenVMS security model        (Chapter 2)
  Using the system responsible  (Chapter 3)
  Managing system access        (Chapter 7)

Second day
  Managing system access        (Chapter 7)
  Protecting data               (Chapter 4)

Third day
  Using protected subsystem     (Chapter 13)
  Security for a DECnet node    (Chapter 12)
  
Fourth day
  Security for a DECnet node    (Chapter 12)
  System security breaches      (Chapter 12)
  Security auditing             (Chapter 10)
  DECinspect Compl. Manager   

I taught this course already 5 times, with success. The students were
very enthousiastic, mainly because it is a very practical course about setting
up a system secure.

Greetings,
Ed.

    
    Hi Ed,
    
    How are you. 
    
    This is great input.  May I contact you further for more
    details as we lay out the plans for this work?
    
    Thanks
    
    Mel
    

    Ed (.-2) has what appears to be a workable approach.
    
    I would like to see the DECnet rules os access control, from the "OLD"
    network security course included. 
    
    Also, what are the equipment needs (one VMS node for each ? students?)
    
    Regards,
    Arnold Tarling
    

    Dear Ed;
    
    The "Rules of ACCESS CONTROL" describe, in security terms, which users
    can access which objects on which nodes.  A secure node is not possible
    without an understanding of these rules.
    
    I do not have the "OLD" 2-day Network Security course number handy.
    
    We do not currently have sufficient hardware in Dallas TX to have one
    node for each two students, but I would expect that additional 3100's
    could be obtained.
    
    Regards,
    Arnold Tarling
    
    

    Hello,
    
    I am teaching this course again for the first time in over a year, and
    was less than pleased to find out that the copy of the book we received
    was the "Meatless" copy (The latest "revision").
    
    I thought we had pulled this stinker as being a total ripoff to the
    students?
    
    What happened?
    
    tom

  Course is being rewritten as we speak.  We asked for volunteers from
  the Delivery Managers for reviewers for the new course...we got none
  the last I checked.  What will it look like?  Without a reviewer, I'm
  not sure.
  
  Stay tuned...a new course should be available soon...of some flavor.
  
  $

                                                        ...we got none
  the last I checked.  What will it look like?  Without a reviewer, I'm
    
    The last I heard, Arnold was going to review it (I was willing, but
    time couldn't be found to make me available for review).
    
    It still doesn't answer the question of why we have gone back to giving
    out the totally-worthless copy of the book instead of the
    mostly-worthless one.

    If the review can be done remotely, then add my name to the list. The
    current course in not viable and the previous course was only
    marginally useful. So if it will make a "better" product I will find
    time to do the review.
    
    
    BobH

    Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the course will not be
    updated and will eventually be phased out.  The demand across the world
    for this course has been reduced drastically and cannot justify the
    dollars to update the course.  I had funding a year ago but could not
    get anyone at that time to be reviewers or help with the development
    (even though it was funded development).  Now I have lost the window of
    opportunity we had and the funding has been pulled.
    
    I am suggesting to the delivery managers to stop scheduling the course
    as open enrollment and let the opportunities fall under custom learning
    solutions.
    
    

    Hi,
    
    In the Netherlands we don't phase out the security course. We use the
    security manual in combination with our developed lab exercises. The
    existing security course was not useable, so I developed the security
    course for the Netherlands.
    The students are always very enthousiastic about the course because
    it's a very practical course. The students start with a just installed
    system and have to build it up to a prodction system with all sort of
    secure accounts, applications, queues, files and directories. At the
    end of the course they run Polycenter Security Compliance Manager to
    check if they build up a C2 secure OpenVMS system in a DECnet phase IV
    network.
    
    
    Greetings,
    Ed Janssen