On 15 July 2014 15:33, Alexandru Juncu <al...@linux.com> wrote: > On 27 June 2014 00:56, G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Anselm Lingnau >> <anselm.lingnau+exam...@linupfront.de> wrote: >>> Having said that, a major revision of LPIC-1 was rumoured to be in the works >>> for this year (the LPI tries to maintain a 5-year cycle for major >>> revisions). >>> So far this list has been suspiciously silent, but if you go to the LPI wiki >>> you will find a page called http://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-1_Objectives_V4 . >>> In >> >> Hey everyone, >> >> Here is the latest draft of the LPIC-1 objectives: >> >> http://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-1_Objectives_V4 >> >> >> Also, there are updates coming to LPIC-304 which are here: >> >> http://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-304_Objectives_V2 >> >> >> Lastly, the Linux Essentials Objectives have had a minor revision made to >> them: >> >> http://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LinuxEssentials_Objectives_V1.5 >> >> Feel free to make additional comments. Also, there's a useful >> 'history' link at the top of these pages. > >
Hello! Mostly, the drafts looks good, so good job for those that worked on it. I am glad to see that focus has been put in the Networking section on IPv6 and iproute2. And though most of the theoretical aspects are covered, I don't like the line: "Knowledge about common TCP and UDP ports and services (20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 123, 139, 143, 161, 162, 389, 443, 465, 514, 636, 993, 995). " Not because of the concept, but because of text of the bullet. Yes, it's important to know about network servies, but just listing a long list of numbers doesn't seem to be the point. I think only half of them ar relevant and actually worth knowing. Others should be learned when talking a specific service (for example, port 123 is worth mentioning only when discussing NTP). About the "Subnetting", how in depth should this be treated? Because, for example, Cisco CCNA courses dedicate entire chapter for this. I noticed that LPIC treaded the idea of subnet only at classful boundaries (with class A,B and C subnet masks). Will this still be the case or any subnet masks be valid (in this case, I would add the concept of dotted quad representation of netmasks and prefix notation). For the Security topic, I would remove the concepts about inetd or xined. I don't think they are that widely used and should be demoted to "aware of " status. Thank you! (I resent this message, don't know why it was not published on the ml before). _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
