Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Etienne -- I was wrong about Samba being important. > ... cut ...
Etienne Goyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it is. The question is : should it be a core exam ? I > believe not, for reasons exposed earlier. If you disagree, > let's discuss it! You utterly missed my (quite rhetoric-filled, and I full admit) 2nd statement right after that ... Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Etienne -- I was wrong about Samba being important. > Alan -- I was wrong about Samba not being important. In other words, while you two circle each other (amongst others) barking back and forth on whether or not "Samba is important" or not, whether it should be a "core" exam or not, I'm trying to *SMACK* both of you to stop talking in "projects" (like they were "products") and think in _technologies_! E.g., SMB is *USELESS* for UNIX-to-UNIX file services. And SMB works rather _poorly_ for Linux-to-Linux file services (don't get me started). And that's just "network file services" -- _ignoring_ the real, "enterprise" aspects of authentication, objecdts, etc... Now, I invite any of you to read my recent posts, the archives and countless other discussions. Work with Matt. He's really a key leader in this project. He knows where the "project" name on the exam ends and the "enterprise" aspects of its questions/content begin. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
