On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Marc Baudoin <mbaud...@linagora.com> wrote:
> So I'm going to break the silence.
But on the day that we're supposed to go from draft to released? I'm
gonna get you for this. ;)
> I've already said that a few years ago but the order of the
> objectives is not logical.
Agreed. But I'll let the other responses cover that.
> the correct order. So be it, that's already what I do. But what
> about people who do self-training? Can they stand back enough to
> do this by themselves?
I think that there's two groups here.
One that knows enough to use the objectives as a checklist and one
that would go to third party courseware and books. Kind of like this
guy did:
http://www.gocertify.com/articles/linux-decrypted-how-this-ccie-fast-tracked-his-linux-ambitions.html
I don't know to which self-study material he's referring, though.
> In 103.1, . and source would make more sense in 105.2.
I think that it would better in 105.1 (ie. for sourcing bashrcs and
login/logouts). And revisited in 105.2 (or left as an 'aha' moment).
Opinions? I've moved it to 105.1 until I hear otherwise from people.
> Is exec
> really useful (if it is, I would also suggest to move it to
> 105.2)?
Yes, it's useful. Why have a shell process kicking around when you
really want something else to take over.
Plus, I find using exec to redirect file descriptors very useful.
This isn't the best article/forum post on the matter but it
illustrates my point:
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/18899/when-would-you-use-an-additional-file-descriptor
I don't think that we cover this aspect of exec in the LPI exams, though.
I think that you're right about it being in 105.2, though. Doing an
exec on the command line isn't usually what someone wants.
> In 103.2, is the pr command (designed for matrix printers, which
> are seldom used today) really useful? I also doubt expand, fmt,
> join, paste, split and unexpand are heavily used. On the other
> hand, more and less are useful filters, which are not listed
> here.
hilarious. We've missed less on that list for years. I've added it.
Personally, I use(d) pr. Although, I'm more likely to use enscript
nowadays but I don't think that we should cover that. I'm okay with
dropping it if we can get a 'second' from someone on this nomination.
Also, personally, I use expand on other people's source code quite
often. Mixed spaces/tabs are really annoying when people don't use
the right tabstops. ;)
And fmt is pretty handy when you want to make your paragraphs look
nice. I use fmt in vi all the time I should probably make a map for
it.
> In 103.3, xz should be added to the list of compression programs.
Added.
> The title for topic 102, "Linux Installation and Package
> Management", is not accurate. Linux installation is not dealt
> with.
Isn't 102.1 (designing hard disk layouts) and 102.2 (installing a boot
manager) part of doing a Linux install?
Arguable, so is managing shared libraries when you're installing
(additional) software.
> I still find it hard to deal with shared libraries with people
> with no knowledge of C programming. Let's face it, most systems
> administrators nowadays know nothing about C and the POSIX API,
> which also makes their understanding of the operating system much
> more superficial. Does the 102.3 subtopic, with only 1 question
> in the exam, needs to be maintained here? It would make much more
> sense in 201.
I'd vote 'yes' to keeping it. IMO, it's essential knowledge. And
dropping it to move it to 201 would mean a 4 year window (our next
major update to LPIC-2) where it isn't covered at all.
What about the use case where someone wants to download something new
and try it out in their user account? Especially, something that
hasn't been packaged for them.
> Enough for 101, let's move to 102.
>
> In 105.1, /etc/bash.bashrc is missing in the awfully long list of
> bash configuration files
Added.
> (yes, I'm not a bash fan, zsh rocks!).
Agreed. At least for command line use. I still use bash for
scripting, though. Least common denominator and all. Actually, I
just switched from #!/bin/sh to #!/bin/bash a year or two ago for all
script writing. I've had it with having to remember when I started using
bashisms in my scripts.
> In 106.1, should xhost still be covered given its coarse
> security? Basic knowledge of xauth should replace it, knowing
> that ssh -X automatically does everything necessary.
I think that most people would argue for less X in general for the
exam. I have a soft spot for it, though. Porting X11R5, Motif and
CDE to a new platform was my second job out of university (a long time
ago ;)).
> In 107.1, vipw is dearly missing...
I believe that vipw (and vigr) were in the objectives but dropped a
few years ago to keep vi from creeping into the 102 exam. Although,
the EDITOR environment variable will fix that problem for the
vi-challenged.
Isn't this where usermod/groupmod come in, though?
> In 109.2, configuration files (/etc/network/interfaces,
> /etc/sysconfig/network and
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*) should be covered (they
> are used by ifup, which is in the objectives).
We're getting into distro specifics here (albeit, prevalent ones).
I'm not against adding them at an "awareness" level but I don't think
that we need to cover the innards.
Opinions anyone?
> 109.4 should immediately follow 109.2 and so
> /etc/resolv.conf, /etc/hosts and /etc/nsswitch.conf should not be
> covered in 109.2.
hosts + nsswitch.conf (hosts: files ...) != DNS
I did drop resolv.conf from 109.2, though. It is DNS.
> In 110.2, shouldn't inetd and xinetd be removed? I think they
> haven't been used by default on any distribution for quite some
> time now. Standalone daemons are the default now (even if I
> still launch my UW IMAP from inetd, but that's me).
It's still around and important stuff. Plus, some people use LPIC-1
(particularly) as a Unix certification.
How about we wait until the next update. By then systemd will have
subsumed everything and we can decide on whether it should replace the
(x)inetd coverage? :-D
Thanks, Marc. These were great comments.
If anyone made it this far, let me know if you have a problem with any
of the changes.
Regards,
--matt
--
G. Matthew Rice <mr...@lpi.org> gpg id: EF9AAD20
--
G. Matthew Rice <mr...@lpi.org> gpg id: EF9AAD20
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
lpi-examdev@lpi.org
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
