Hello. On 23/10/23 22:46, Dimitrios Bogiatzoules via lpi-examdev wrote:
Hi!Am 23.10.23 um 20:25 schrieb Marc Baudoin via lpi-examdev:A weight of 2 for installations from source code is way too low because this is the heart and soul of free software (or open source). Remembering the days before Linux, system administrators*had* to build software from source code, having to modify it along the way because the author used a different kind of UNIX. System administrators also had to know C and the POSIX API for that. Since Linux has binary packages, the level of knowledge system administrators have about their system has dramatically dwindled and most of them don't understand correctly the basic tools provided by the system (I often see that about things as simple as redirects and pipes).Just being curious: if nowadays software is installed using packages, as you describe, why would an objetive about installing from the source deserve a bigger weight? As much as I understand the nostalgia, in contemporary environments, installing from the source is the absolute exception and in many cases organisations do not even allow other than specific repositories to be used.If anyone would ask my opinion, I'd drop objective 205.1 completely and give its weighting to backup, which deserves more.
I agree.I would also put "201.4 Alternate Bootloaders (weight: 2)" on the cutting block. They are way too niche, dated and irrelevant to the 2020s professional use of Linux. Event the hardware is gone, except for network booting which can anyway be performed directly from the system firmware without any additional boot device.
Alessandro
OpenPGP_0x0B0C681E8D9C1603.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
