Re: [lpi-examdev] Objectives LPIC-2 Exam 201 Version 5.0 Discussion

[Justin Keller via lpi-examdev]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:58 PM Alessandro Selli via lpi-examdev
<lpi-examdev@list.lpi.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
So many scripts, packages, apps, etc do not have packages available.
Maybe the packages version has a config flag that turns off a feature
you need that is available if it's a source build or maybe you need to
compile it with specific flags for it to work--either at all or most
optimized. Also, security critical updates would be pushed first to
the source before going through the whole life cycle of package
management. Instead, installing from source can make it much easier...
though many times I find myself using cmskecfor it or a simple
./configure with a flag or two, make && make install
> 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.
I can't remember the last time I touched anything besides grub for
Linux specific
>
>
> Alessandro
>
> _______________________________________________
> lpi-examdev mailing list
> lpi-examdev@list.lpi.org
> https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
lpi-examdev@list.lpi.org
https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev