Yes it is 21 century but does it mean reliable although old tools (so to speak) are worthless. If age is your main issue so propably it is worth realising how many 'aged' technologies are still in use today and they are based on principles as old as humanity On 13 Apr 2015 00:48, "Anselm Lingnau" <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de> wrote:
> Ross Brunson <rbrun...@lpi.org> wrote: > > > I can definitively state, but even if you object if you do not include > VI, > > I will still use it, and I will still teach my attendees how to use. > > I don't think anybody here would disagree with the observation that a > working knowledge of the basics of vi is a useful thing to have. It > builds character (in the way that cod liver oil used to build character, > way back when we didn't have vi) and can occasionally help one out of a > tight place. > > Whether that observation justifies the conclusion that vi is a > reasonable (or, deity beware, generally recommended) editor for one's > non-sysadmin day-to-day work – not just editing configuration files, but > writing code, memos, e-mail, or theses – in the 21st century, or that it > is appropriate to cover the usage of vi (as opposed to the existence or > purpose of vi) in a multiple-choice exam for fledgling system > administrators, are completely different and unrelated questions. (To be > sure, there are people – especially old-school people who have been > around for a while – who do consider vi the single best editor for > everything and who go through life in blissful happiness on that > account. More power to them, but this is the 21st century, and there are > other good editors that people can reasonably use for their day-to-day > work.) > > We teach our attendees lots of things which are not on the official LPI > syllabus, but (for a variety of reasons) we don't try to force these > things onto the syllabus. Getting rid of the vi objective in the LPI-101 > exam would in no way prevent anyone from teaching people how to use vi > if they thought it was so important, but it would remove the need for > people to learn the obscure details of a 1970s-era tool when there are > other more modern, perfectly adequate, and widely deployed alternatives > around. And as I said, if the main reason you're into vi is that “it > exists everywhere”, you should really teach people ed(1) because that > works in places where even vi can't go. > > If anything, the vi content on the exam should in my opinion be > downgraded to weight 1 to cover cursor keys (or “hjkl” if you must), > “x”, “i”, “O”, “J” and “ZZ”. This is a reasonable minimum to be able to > edit configuration files. Again, one should feel free to teach more if > one can do it without putting one's students to sleep, but the exam can > well afford to stick to the basics, and it would free up 2 weight points > which can be profitably employed elsewhere. > > Anselm > > Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer. My > employer has so far not expressed an opinion about vi. It is fairly > safe to assume that my employer has no idea that vi even exists in the > first place. > -- > Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & > Netz-Schulungen > anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, > www.linupfront.de > Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany > Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Geschäftsführer: Oliver Michel > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
_______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list lpi-discuss@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
