Simone Piccardi <[email protected]> wrote: > When there is only vi you must be capable to use it.
Which is why it's in the objectives, as long as 'interactive' and 'text editing' is a reality we (LPI) test, then that's unavoidable. And it's one of the primary objectives, because text editing is so critical. A weight of 1 treats it as a minor need. But that's do no means that a sysadmin must use always use vi to do editing. > It seems to me that you are telling that if you don't *always* use vi to > do editing you cannot be a proficient sysadmin. That's not true. Where did I ever say that? Please point it out. And that the problem here ... How are people taking my context of 'LPI objectives and weighting,' and the reality that Vi -- unlike sendmail and so many other things -- is the only visual text editor available on many systems, in many modes, as well as busybox? I even poked fun at myself about the other things, including RPN, to emphasize a point. That even if I _subjectively_ think knowing Vi is most efficient versus basic editors for sysadmins 'interactive' on systems (again, we could just take that whole aspect out, which I'm open to), just like RPN for engineers, that does _not_ matter when it comes to LPI objectives and weighting. LPI objectives and weighting is about commonality, defaults and, especially so, when only 1 thing is available -- 100% objectively. So even if people take issue with those who live Vi, just like RPN, that doesn't matter when it comes LPI objectives and weighting. It factors in nil. It's completely subjective in argument. The objective argument is, as other say, like it or hate it ... Vi is a mandatory skill that must be tested. As long as LPI is still 'interactive' and 'text editing,' including LPIC-1/2 being 'break fix' and Vi being the sole visual text editor on many systems. > Beeing not a vi fan and a proficient enough sysadmin I know enough of vi > to be > capable to edit files when only vi is present, but I don't need and > don't want to use vi in the other cases where I can use an editor I like > better. > Who says I'm a Vi fan? ;) Did you guys assume I was? kinda even hinted at that with the RPN tangent. HINT: I've been purposely holding this back too. ;) I'd rather a full, real IDE with bash, Python and other things that does virtual-ctags on-the-fly. Just like I, like most people, like a Computer Algebraic System (CAS) instead of RPN. But when on the golf course, and the judge says, "You're going to use Vi and you're going to like it!" One uses Vi. ;) Just like when I've got a calculator interface, instead of a CAS, I use RPN because it works best for complex equations (as many calculators offer it). All your examples of vi unaware sysadmins difficulties do not apply. You > must be aware of vi, and we need to text that in LPI. But for this a > weight 1 is correct, 3 is excessive. As we are discussing, this seems to me more and more a rite of passage. > And not in the sense of a common knowledge shared by people, but like an > initiation to be part of the sect of the "vi only editing" sysadmin. > Because people are seeing the _subjective_ 'rite of passage' argument, instead of seeing the obviousness of the truth. That a junior sysadmin doesn't have to know interactive, visual text editing on a system, and gets no more than 1 question, as if text editing was nothing ... like a graphical desktop (also Weight: 1). The _objective_ argument is that a junior admin can't be dead in the water, and have to wait for a senior sysadmin, to edit a text file ... especially if he/she is taking direction from the senior over the phone or otherwise unable to follow verbal instructions because they cannot edit a file. The only counter-_objective_ argument I can see is if we remove 'interactive' and 'break-fix' from the program, or offer an alternative track that doesn't. That's the only one I can see because text editing is not optional, and an absolute core aspect of being even a junior sysadmin. So much so that we give it 3 points, the 2nd highest, for a reason. - bjs
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
