On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:40:27 +0200 Anselm Lingnau <ans...@tuxcademy.org> > wrote: >> 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,
Hi Anselm, I don't think consensus on which editor should be conflated with consensus on covering an editor. For example, if we did that, there would have been a time when LPIC-2 covered no MTAs and, currently, no HTTP servers. (Did I just open a can of worms?) For me, covering nano/pico or other 'obvious to use' editors isn't worthwhile. However, when someone is stuck with vi, and emergency situation is not the time to be fussing around as Alessandro mentioned. Not to mention, vi is a tool that a person can grow with...advanced vi features/ed/ex/(sed but we cover that)/vim. People that avoid vi because "it's complicated" are short changing their options later on. > 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 Hi Alessandro, 'Professional use cases' brings up something I wanted to mention earlier when someone mentioned LPIC-1 being a (Linux) sysadmin cert. I know quite a few people that also view it as a Unix cert. And, in my mind, it's a cert for any professional user of Linux. I spent the first part of my career as a sw developer (SunOS and Linux, mostly) and it took many years to accumulate the portions of the LPIC-1 knowledge body that would have made life so much more fun, productive and safer to the enduser. This point isn't really about the vi discussion, though. I just wanted to say it. >> (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? Some things are timeless...like roman numerals. It took a few passes at parsing this comment to realize you meant 3rd millennium (or IIIrd?), though. Probably better to use the unambiguous term '0b11rd'. :) Regards, --matt -- G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com> gpg id: 0x17CF9077 _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
