Alessandro Selli wrote: > When I train people to LPI certification objectives I train them to > pass LPIC-1 certification exams, not to be good, all-round GNU/Linux > sysadmins.
That's the difference between the two of us then. At Linup Front GmbH, we don't »teach to the exam«. The goal of our training materials (and by extension the classes we teach based on them) is to give people what they need to know in Real Life. In many cases this quite deliberately goes beyond the LPI exam objectives. For example, in our introductory curriculum we cover shell programming in great detail, illustrating various programming and debugging techniques, even though it is possible to pass the LPI-102 exam with a fairly cursory knowledge of the syntax of various shell constructs. This is because I don't see much point in drilling people on syntax rules if they don't know what to do with them, and so I'd like to leave them with enough knowledge to write and debug simple shell scripts that actually do useful things, and to puzzle out more complex ones they may encounter. That sort of thing does take time but it is usually time well spent. This approach also acknowledges the fact that, at the end of the day, many of our customers are interested in learning Linux rather than passing exams; many of our classes take place outside an LPI context, and, while we do encourage people to get certified, in many cases it is not a priority to them. As far as time constraints for classes are concerned, boo hoo hoo. We also get asked to teach LPI prep classes in completely absurd time spans (e.g., 2 days for LPIC-2). If that happens we make it clear that there is no way to fit 5 liters of water into a 1-liter container, no matter how fervently the customer wishes that to be possible. Everything else would be dishonest, unfair to both the instructor and the class participants, and, in the long run, bad for business. This approach usually leads to more realistic class-time arrangements. > > I'll keep that content in the book no matter what the exam objectives say. > > This is your decision. It is also worth noting that the fact that something is in the book does not imply that it must be taught in class. If you're using our books but do not subscribe to the idea of mentioning address classes on your workshop time then feel free to skip the quarter of a page in question. It's not as if anything later depends on it, and your participants can still read it at leisure at some later stage. > Is Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation part of the LPIC-1 objectives? Not as far as I'm aware of – and since LPIC-1 doesn't deal with server-side DNS at all, there is no reason it should be. I mentioned it as a counterweight to the claim that network classes were important for reverse DNS, which they aren't; they just make certain things more convenient. > Or is it one more thing you include in your classes and textbooks > regardless? Yes we do, in the part of our LPIC-2 materials that covers DNS (which is where it belongs). You will note that even LPIC-2 doesn't actually require classless delegation, but in our experience the question does come up in classes. In fact we offer a more in-depth DNS class (including details of topics like DNSSEC which are not part of the LPIC-2 exam beyond »knowing what it does«) to people who are interested in actually running a real-life DNS server as opposed to just passing LPIC-2; the DNS content in our LPIC-2 training materials is a subset of that of the manual for that class. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & Netz-Schulungen anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Geschäftsführer: Oliver Michel _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
