Les Bell wrote:
>
> Chuck Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> In my opinion anyone who can pass LPIC2 (if there is not even a single
> Windoze question on it) will be able to handle a Windows client better
> than 80% of the MCSE's in the field today and I have reason to know.
> <<
>
> I fully expect that to be the case. In fact, it demonstrates that even
> committed Linux enthusiasts wind up learning more about Microsoft software
> than they'd like to know - because 9 times out of 10, that's what's on the
> client end of the wire. I rest my case. <g>
No, your conclusion is based on emotion, not fact. When I first looked
at M$ (I was already a UNIX admin on SunOS4 and Ultrix), I couldn't
figure out much of anything from the GUI. But I thought about how it
all worked from the back end and could coax it into doing more or less
what I wanted it to do. Not because I knew anything about M$, I just
knew how it had to work if it wanted to talk to the rest of the world.
>
> >>
> Mickey$oft's crap doesn't
> interoperate with anything that doesn't go out of its way on its own to
> make it so.
> <<
>
> Correct. You're making my point for me: A really competent Linux admin
> needs to go out of his way to learn something of the Windows world to deal
> with it.
Not necessarily. Some things have to work in certain ways to work with
anyone or anything else that's networked. M$ telnet box might be a
piece of junk, but it has to connect to port 23 and talk the telnet
protocol at least in a basic sense. I've set up Samba without looking
at a single Windoze box. If the customer tells me "it works" on one
machine, the rest of the machines are his (his MCSE's) problem. If he
tells me it doesn't work, I tell him to reboot and that usually fixes
the problem.
>
> >>
> Besides what the hell do you worry about nslookup for when
> you're talking about Samba? Sounds like a WINS thing-a-ma-jig to me!
> NetBIOS name resolution is a far cry from DNS.
> <<
>
> Agreed that nslookup and Samba are not related, protocol-wise. I was using
> Samba as the most obvious example of a Linux subsystem where MS-related
> knowledge and skills are useful. To get a large NetBIOS-over-TCP/IP network
> involving Windows clients and Samba servers working, you need to understand
> a bit about WINS, domain controllers, primary and backup browsers, browser
> elections, the Windows way of doing name resolution, etc. Should this be
> included in Linux course materials, and should LPI test for it? There's a
> serious issue here.
>
> Microsoft obviously uses the MCSE as a marketing tool; its primary purpose
> is to produce an unpaid sales force of Windows evangelists in customer
> organizations, and to that end MCSE training and testing includes the
> minimum of information about interoperability that they can get away with
> and nothing remotely favourable to competitive products. They're never
> going to include information about getting Windows clients working with a
> Samba server; they can only lose from that. However, the Linux community
> has everything to gain from teaching how to configure a Windows client to
> interoperate with a Linux server, and how to diagnose interoperability from
> the Windows client end as well as at the server. By doing so, we'd be
> claiming some moral high ground, and pointing to the fact that
> Linux-related education and certification produces people with practical
> problem-solving skills.
>
> I'm not really suggesting that a Linux training course ought to teach
> people how to configure Control Panel -> Networks -> Protocols -> TCP/IP on
> Windows NT, although a comprehensive Samba course might. But we ought not
> to shy away from it, and might say things like "If you want to turn off
> password encryption, then the relevant Windows registry entry is . . ."
> because these things are useful to know. Password encryption has been a
> classic trap for young players. Is it a Windows problem? Yes. If a Linux
> admin doesn't know about it, does it make him and Linux look bad?
> Unfortunately, yes, in the eyes of many MIS managers.
No, teach them how to turn on password encryption in Samba (in the
Global section: encrypt passwords = Yes). Forget hacking the Windoze
registry, you're not supposedto have to (that's the M$ line, but we know
better).
>
> My point remains: nslookup is part of BIND; it's still part of BIND 9.x
> although it issues warnings about its being deprecated. If it wasn't there,
> I would say "drop it". But it *is* there, in Linux - and a Really Useful
> admin will know it. Someone who only knows dig and whines at me that '
> "Mickey$oft's crap" doesn't have dig', is Not Useful. I think most
> employers will favour Really Useful People Who Get Things Done, and I would
> like to think that LPI certification is regarded as reflecting useful
> knowledge and not operating system lawyering.
I don't know if M$' version of nslookup (I'm talking the syntax now) is
the same as the Unix syntax, because I've never used M$' nslookup. I
know they often change the syntax (and definitely change the output --
look at netstat sometime, talk about a jumble of garbage it takes
several minutes to reformat in the head to be readable, which make me
wonder how NT does routing at all). So if the Linux nslookup syntax is
the same, then great, he can run them both. And nslookup is still
available (although lately I've only been teaching dig because its
output is more useful, IMHO). At least in Linux you have a choice of
powerful tools.
>
> FWIW, it's no big deal. But in my courses, I'll still be making mention of
> nslookup. If it never turns up in an LPI test, my students will never
> notice. But if someone ever asks them if their DNS is broken, and they grab
> a nearby Windows machine and run nslookup to check - well, perhaps they'll
> remember what I told them and smile. <g>
Why would you, as a Linux admin, run commands on a Windoze box? Guess I
still don't understand this.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
-- Nemesis Racing Team motto
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
