I'm thinking any one who doesn't work with vi editor, why they want to work in Linux I suggest to them work in windows it is very good choice for them
> Le 6 avr. 2016 à 18:00, lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org a écrit : > > Send lpi-discuss mailing list submissions to > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lpi-discuss-ow...@lpi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of lpi-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Anselm Lingnau) > 2. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Fernando Roca) > 3. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Ian Shields) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 22:10:46 +0200 > From: Anselm Lingnau <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: <58409628.nfvi9Xj1y1@ceol> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Julia B?tow wrote: > >> I have never seen a sysadmin, dev ops, software test engineer, developer who >> cannot operate vi, this is why I am very surprised about this discussion. >> If I would have to hire a new sysadmin (no matter if junior or senior) and >> realize he/she is not familiar with vi I would have serious doubts. > > There is much more to being a Linux professional than what editor one uses. > > Personally I know just enough vi to pass LPIC-1, simply because I've never > felt the need to do a deep dive into the guts of that particular dinosaur, > but > with 30+ years of experience as a Unix/Linux sysadmin, developer, consultant > and instructor, as well as the author of several books and a widely acclaimed > set of Linux training manuals, I would laugh in the face of anyone who > claimed > I wasn't a real Linux professional just because I don't use vi when I can in > any way avoid it. > >> Ian's and Anselm's suggestions are a fair compromise, this will at least >> help beginneres to survive, even though I do not see a reason to reduce the >> weight. Nevertheless, an important point is to keep the reputation of the >> certificates at it's high standard, removing content from certifications >> for professionals just because it is too complicated for beginners is not >> an option from my point of view. > > I don't think vi is ?too complicated?. People can learn it if they have to. > The point is that today they no longer have to, and their available time is > more profitably spent learning other, more important things. > > For example, right now the LPI-101 exam contains 3 questions on vi and a > total > of 6 questions that deal with system startup, init systems and so on. The > objectives in question include System-V init, Upstart, systemd and a grab-bag > of other things such as wall. These weights haven't changed significantly > since the widespread adoption of systemd, which is now the default in all > mainstream Linux distributions and brings with it a large swathe of material > that wasn't on the exam before but is essential to know for the > administrators > of systemd-based hosts. In my opinion it would therefore make a lot of sense > to downgrade vi and use the weight points thus gained to increase the depth > of > coverage of systemd. > > Anselm > -- > Anselm Lingnau ? Linup Front GmbH (MAX21) ? Linux- & Open-Source-Schulungen > anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-0, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de > Robert-Koch-Str. 9, 64331 Weiterstadt Post: Postf. 100121, 64201 Darmstadt DE > Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705) Geschf: Oliver Michel, Nils Manegold > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 23:08:37 +0200 > From: Fernando Roca <ashto...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: "General discussion relating to LPI." <lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > Message-ID: > <cae3l3-9p3rd+hhgkgbjjmscoexpt6sfay+tgbvufuhdaokq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Nobody would say you are not a linux profesional because you dont use vi > since thats a personal preference, thats not what the previous comment > said... what the previous comment said is that you are not a linux > profesional or at least not one to take into consideration if you dont know > vi to a certain level (which level is another discusion). > > Regards > > 2016-04-05 22:10 GMT+02:00 Anselm Lingnau <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de>: > >> Julia B?tow wrote: >> >>> I have never seen a sysadmin, dev ops, software test engineer, developer >> who >>> cannot operate vi, this is why I am very surprised about this discussion. >>> If I would have to hire a new sysadmin (no matter if junior or senior) >> and >>> realize he/she is not familiar with vi I would have serious doubts. >> >> There is much more to being a Linux professional than what editor one uses. >> >> Personally I know just enough vi to pass LPIC-1, simply because I've never >> felt the need to do a deep dive into the guts of that particular dinosaur, >> but >> with 30+ years of experience as a Unix/Linux sysadmin, developer, >> consultant >> and instructor, as well as the author of several books and a widely >> acclaimed >> set of Linux training manuals, I would laugh in the face of anyone who >> claimed >> I wasn't a real Linux professional just because I don't use vi when I can >> in >> any way avoid it. >> >>> Ian's and Anselm's suggestions are a fair compromise, this will at least >>> help beginneres to survive, even though I do not see a reason to reduce >> the >>> weight. Nevertheless, an important point is to keep the reputation of the >>> certificates at it's high standard, removing content from certifications >>> for professionals just because it is too complicated for beginners is not >>> an option from my point of view. >> >> I don't think vi is ?too complicated?. People can learn it if they have to. >> The point is that today they no longer have to, and their available time is >> more profitably spent learning other, more important things. >> >> For example, right now the LPI-101 exam contains 3 questions on vi and a >> total >> of 6 questions that deal with system startup, init systems and so on. The >> objectives in question include System-V init, Upstart, systemd and a >> grab-bag >> of other things such as wall. These weights haven't changed significantly >> since the widespread adoption of systemd, which is now the default in all >> mainstream Linux distributions and brings with it a large swathe of >> material >> that wasn't on the exam before but is essential to know for the >> administrators >> of systemd-based hosts. In my opinion it would therefore make a lot of >> sense >> to downgrade vi and use the weight points thus gained to increase the >> depth of >> coverage of systemd. >> >> Anselm >> -- >> Anselm Lingnau ? Linup Front GmbH (MAX21) ? Linux- & >> Open-Source-Schulungen >> anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-0, Fax -299, >> www.linupfront.de >> Robert-Koch-Str. 9, 64331 Weiterstadt Post: Postf. 100121, 64201 >> Darmstadt DE >> Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705) Geschf: Oliver Michel, Nils >> Manegold >> _______________________________________________ >> lpi-discuss mailing list >> lpi-discuss@lpi.org >> http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://list.lpi.org/pipermail/lpi-discuss/attachments/20160405/fc7f3f08/attachment.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:41:03 -0400 > From: Ian Shields <ianshie...@nc.rr.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: <57043eff.3020...@nc.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >> On 4/5/2016 02:40, Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> Ian Shields wrote: >> >>> In general. I agree with the sentiment that vi should cover only basic >>> commands. I think you need to know at least the following: >>> 1) How to get in and out of vi >>> 2) Enough about modes to know that there is a command mode and an insert >>> mode and pressing esc will get you out of insert mode if you're in it. >>> 3) How to move your cursor up, down, right and left and maybe to >>> end/beginning of line >>> 4) How to scroll a page in either direction >>> 5) How to search forward and backward for a string >>> 6) how to insert, edit and delete text. >>> 7) How to save or quit a file without saving. >> Sounds reasonable to me. (Given that the arrow keys and Page-up/down do >> what's >> printed on them, that leaves ?i?, ?x?, ?/?, ???, ?ZZ?, and ?:q!?. We probably >> have to throw in ?dd? and ?J? because of the brain-damaged way vi deals with >> lines.) > If the arrow keys don't happen to do what's printed on them (as I've > seen by default on some *IX) systems, you probably need an editor to set > up some customization. Particularly if you can't get the network working > either so you can't SCP or otherwise copy definitions from somewhere > else. If your editor of choice isn't installed (and nano isn't usually > installed on my Fedora systems), you will probably resort to vi. And you > may need to know how to navigate without the arrow keys. Sure it's ugly. > Sure it has warts all over it. Sure it smells to high heaven. But it > works and I think your list of commands is too minimal for LPIC-1. I'm > no vi guru and have no great desire to become one. >> >>> I'm curious as to how you downgrade vi to a weight 1 objective and still >>> know enough to use it. I don't think most other weight 1 objectives >>> require this much skill. >> You can learn the above in a quarter of an hour using something like >> vimtutor, >> especially because you can immediately see what happens. > I think you need a bit more than you do, but that's my opinion. >> >> Quotas are a weight-1 objective and they take longer than that if you >> actually >> configure them and convince yourself that they do what they claim. That >> includes some reasonably non-trivial stuff like soft and hard quotas, >> compared >> to which the basic vi command set outlined earlier is easy-peasy. (Although >> I'm secretly convinced quotas are weight-1 so it doesn't matter too much if >> you skip them altogether ? I don't think I've seen a Linux system in the wild >> that was actually running quotas. Perhaps people still use them at >> universities.) > Hmm. I ran into quite a few quotas on systems when I worked at IBM. I > agree that the weight of 1 is not proportionate to the amount you need > to know. >> >>> Did you ever ask anyone how they might do things if they had to operate >>> on a 2400, 4800, or 9600bps glass teletype instead of a fiber optic >>> internet connected graphical device with more pixels than old-timers >>> probably ever imagined possible? >> Nano presumably runs over a 2400bps connection about as well (or badly) as vi >> does. (I'm assuming you don't mean the real ?glass teletypes? where you only >> get to add stuff at the bottom of the screen and where vi is forced into ex >> mode, because LPIC-1 doesn't cover ex. Which I hope we can all agree should >> stay that way.) >> >> In any case I don't think what people used to do back in the days of 2400bps >> glass teletypes should constrain what we're allowed to do now. Around that >> time, people also used to use the C shell, but fortunately LPIC-1 gives that >> program's strange and wonderful history-editing mechanisms, as carried over >> into bash, only very light coverage now that we can actually edit the command >> history like reasonable people, using arrow keys. Nobody seems to argue that >> we should all be using the Bourne shell (which doesn't have the concept of a >> command history) because it is the agreed standard for sysadmins, has been >> around forever, and (unlike bash) exists everywhere, even on traditional Unix >> ? but yet something very similar appears to be the key argument in favour of >> vi. >> >> In the 1980s I used to use MicroEmacs on serial text terminals and that was >> just fine as far as I was concerned. > The point of my question was simply to help folks who may never have > used such ancient equipment understand why vi might seem so arcane. > Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE for a live demo of > Wikipedia on a 300 baud acoustic modem (the kind in a wooden box where > you dialed the number on a phone handset and then put the receiver in > the box). I used one like that in the early 1970's. > > If nano or some other editor becomes the universally available standard > that is installed as part of every minimal install then I'd be all for > ditching vi. Meantime, understanding some if it's historical context > makes it a bit easier to comprehend why someone might ever design such > an editor. And that makes it a bit easier to learn IMHO. >> >>> Generally agree. Except that there are a few other commands that assume >>> vi, such as visudo, vipw and vigr that assume vi as their default >>> editor. >> All of these use whatever editor the EDITOR variable says they should use. On >> my Debian system, they default to nano. They may have ?vi? in their name but >> ultimately that doesn't mean a lot. > Yep, Debian uses nano. Lots of distros still use vi. I don't think you > can ever know how to use too many editors. :-) >> >> Anselm > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > > End of lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 8 > ******************************************* _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list lpi-discuss@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
