I agree on everything but lowering vi-topic weight.
I wouldn't even go into macros or other complicated stuff (split window & so), but maybe a way no to overload people should be to add a section on Vi-topic about "awareness of" all these nice things, so we keep the test simple but show some key advantages of Vi and why it's everywhere. I.e. Check manpage: 'K' u/Ctrl+r: Undo/Redo Ctrl+N: Autocompletion Replace stuff ( [%.N,M] s[/:!]...[/:!]----[/:!]gi Execute external command in buffer (%! command) Move with w/b 0/$ And a demonstration of some smart-replacement with Regular Expressions (i.e. invert an IP, very handy for DNSs, or add "DROP TABLE $TABLENAME IF EXISTS" in SQLDumps missing it). Regards, Kenneth A 2017-10-16 11:26, Alessandro Selli escrigué: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:40:27 +0200 > Anselm Lingnau <ans...@tuxcademy.org> 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: >> >> (a) there is no clear consensus on which editor(s) should be covered, >> and >> there is certainly no consensus of any kind as to which specific >> editor >> is “best” for day-to-day use on Linux, > > While I do think vi should be set to a 2 weight from the current 3, I > do > find knowledge of vi relevant to several Linux professional use cases. > Lack > of consensus seems to me to derive from the different use cases > participants to the discussion mainly put their Linux boxes. Vi is a > must-know tool for several embedded, IoT and minimal server > installations > that are to be managed, at least in emergency mode, from the > command-line, > often running Busybox. It is also the only editor that's available in > most > default initramfs, which means it's the only editor available on the > grub > command line. In that case it's of course too late to learn vi basics > when > you've got to salvage a crashed server. > >> (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, > > Same reasoning applies to most command line basic tools. There are > however critical situations when you're supposed to know what you've > got to > do and are expected to do it right away, without running tutorials > during an > emergency. > >> (c) having separate exam questions for a basic skill which is crucial >> to getting anywhere with huge swathes of the rest of the subject >> matter >> (anything that involves editing files) is a waste of exam >> questions >> that could be used more profitably elsewhere, and > > Learning the tools to resolve emergency situations is not a waste of > time. > >> (d) exam questions on editors tend to look silly, anyway. > > To whom? Some people think in the III millennium exam questions on > command-line tools designed in the 70s is a waste of time. So? > >> 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. > > I still expect GNU/Linux sysadmins to have a weight-2 vi knowledge to > tell > my employer they are fit to put their hands on the servers in the data > centre. > >> It is reasonable to assume that class instructors will, if necessary, >> spend >> some time getting participants familiar with a suitable editor even if >> that >> editor is not specifically part of the examined content, > > You cannot learn vi in five minutes, especially when the clock is > ticking > during a rescue manoeuvre that is costing your employer €€ by the > minute > of downtime. > > [...] > >> When I was a >> Linux instructor I would simply let people play around with “vimtutor” >> for >> half an hour, which gave me time to read the newspaper. This makes >> sense >> whether or not the exam contains actual questions on vi, > > To me it does not make any sense wasting time during classes on > topics that > are not covered by the the exams' objectives, and I surely do not read > a > newspaper when I am training people. > >> but not having >> questions on vi in the first place enables an instructor to pick the >> editor >> that is best suited to the requirements of their class (which might >> well >> end up being vi but then again might not). > > To me vi ought to be kept as a weight 2 exam subject matter. _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
