Anselm Lingnau wrote: > Bryan Smith wrote: >> I think it's more important to get away away from "choice" and >> "opinion," and first try to define what the LPI Objectives should be >> focused on -- before even attempting to evaluate the tools. > > I'm 100% in favour of getting rid of editors altogether in LPIC-1, on the > grounds that: > ... > (b) it is easy to pick up enough practical knowledge of any editor to be > able to use it for basic tasks, either through something like “vimtutor” > or by simply using something more intuitive such as pico or nano for > a while, > ... > Having said that, I could live with a weight-1 objective that basically > covered awareness of different types of editors (stream-based, terminal-based, > GUI, IDE, …) and their relative strengths and weaknesses but not how to use > any particular editor.
Without condoning these statements, or suggesting I agree or not, these statements are a sound set of arguments for not including a specific editor. This was really what I was trying to foster when I posted prior. And on that note, I think it's time for me to really bow out and let others pick this up. - bjs P.S. The concept of expecting a candidate to know the difference between 'dynamic editing' (e.g., stream commands) versus 'static editing' (e.g., typical text editor) also has merit, from a foundational level, especially if this objective is to be reduced to / replaced with a weight 1. -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
