Timothy, Cert exams are like Fight Club, you never, ever talk about the questions, and particularly not in a public format.
At the very least, you should fill out the comments on the questions, and at the very most you should contact the director of exam development with your concerns, not post them to the public list. Keep in mind that if a certain number of questions are compromised, it can mean the republishing of an exam, which is not an inconsiderable expense. I would suggest getting involved in the exam development process, often times the noticing of a problem is an indication that you're supposed to help fix it, at least in my experience. Ross Global Open Platforms Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://opsamericas.com "Otheus (aka Timothy J. Shelling)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings, I've been a UNIX professional and Linux user for over 10 years. I just took the LP 101 exam and there were some questions I found problematic: either the questions were ambiguous, or there were more than one correct answer. There was a question involving find. The question asked for the specific option that allows the user to (paraphr.) "search in no more than a certain number of subdirectories". That's a bit misleading. It's not the number of subdirectories, but the number of *levels* down the hierarchy. There was only one correct answer, but I scratched my head wondering what was really meant by the question. Why not just use the man page for this wording? A question about quotas asked for which command gave "details" about the quotas. At least two answers were valid: "quota -l" and "repquota". A question about "ln" followed by "rm". One answer was what you would expect (specific to the ln command), and the other was "you are prompted whether you really want to remove that file". Since mose linux distributions have "rm" aliased to "rm -i", especially for the root user, this answer is also correct. I assumed, however, it's not what was meant. A question about "sed" forced me to choose between two correct answers: sed -i s/foo/bar/g x1 sed -i s/foo/bar/g x1 >x2 The second answer does the same as the first, plus it creates an empty file named x2. But it's still correct given the question. A question asked which command would stop a process but allow it to "clean-up" before exiting. In addition to the correct choice, "kill -1 pid" was provided. Technically, the 1 signal can be trapped and handled just like other signals. The fact that it is not common for a process to "clean-up" with a 1 signal is beside the point! Most processes don't "clean-up" to any signal! A question asked which umask provided the given attributes (as provided by ls -l). Both the 027 and 037 were choices and correct. No one uses 037, but it can be useful for making directories that groups cannot descend, but can look at. A question asked for the command that allows one to find a file in the PATH. This was fill in the blank. There actually is no such command. There are several commands which reports the location of the given command, including "which" (all), "whence" (ksh, zsh), and "type" (bash). But I would not say these commands "find" files in the PATH. -- Otheus [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43.699.1049.7813 _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
