On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:15:58 -0800 (PST) "Bryan J. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But, I live in the real world, where ease of use, and > > simplification are also paramount. > > And you say NFS isn't "easy"? Or "not as easy" as Samba? Using one tool where two can be used is easier. Less to remember. Just because you are technically right, doesn't make it the easiest to maintain ( and therefore more reliable because the sysadmin has less to remember ). > > > If your courses are not addressing real world compromises like > > this, > > What "compromises" do you speak of? > I don't understand your point at all? I take it you don't work as a sysadmin then??? I can't tell you, you should go out and find out for yourself though. > > > then your just creating another piece of paper. It could so > > easily be so much more worthwhile, like the RedHat ones > > ( dunno if they're actually still going?? ) > > So you're saying LPI should leave concepts to Red Hat? > Again, I don't understand your point at all? No. RedHat included practical classes in their RHCE testing schema. Whether they still do or not, I have no idea. > > > Dismissing samba > > When did I dismiss Samba? *WHEN*? > > I merely stated that when Samba touches on general, core Linux > authentication and object mapping configuration, and those concepts > _overlap_ with those RPC services added to and supported in NFSv4, > they should _also_ be covered under the context that your "Samba > Server" is *ALSO* serving out NFSv4 to Linux and UNIX workstations. > > > because commercial unices don't support it is pretty pointless > > in this day and age, especially when you're in the business of > > linux certification. > > What three messages does this send? > > LPI has no interest in testing enterprise knowledge of ... > > A) Linux server to UNIX client native RPC capabilities entirely > > B) Linux server to Linux client native RPC capabilities, despite > compatibility issues and limitations of using CIFS/SMB > > And that even (indirectly) means ... > > C) Windows Services for UNIX (SFU) to Linux client, despite > compatibility issues of not using SFU's added ADS schema and sticking > only with Windows-designed CIFS/SMB > > I mean, even Microsoft offers "C". ;-> > > > I only joined this list to offer to put something back into the > > linux community as it's been so good to me. Looks like it was a > > pretty pointless idea, because you're ignoring all the really > > important practical lessons that could be taught just as easily. > > What "practical lessons" are you talking about? The one or two lessons that I have learned working primarily as a Unix(Release 7, Sys 5, DEC Ultrix, HP/UX, Solarix,...)/Linux(debian, RedHat, ubuntu, slackware...) Sys/Net/DB(Ingres, Informix, Oracle, Postgres, MySQL) admin in a heterogeneous environment for over 25 years. I'll be leaving now. There's no point in staying. Silly me for thinking LPI was different. Steve _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
