Dear all, as you might have expected, there is an email for the new objective proposal for exam 102 as well. The links to the draft in the wiki is the same as for 101:
https://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-1_Objectives_V5.0 The changes from version 4.0 can be seen in the page history: https://wiki.lpi.org/pubwiki/index.php?title=LPIC-1_Objectives_V5.0&type=revision&diff=&oldid=4226 There is also a dedicated wiki page summarizing the proposed changes: https://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-1_Summary_Version_4.0_To_5.0#Changes_in_Exam_102 A few changes discussed on the list are currently not part of the proposal because of these considerations: * TCP Wrappers are kept since there seems to be a strong opinion that the candidate should at least recognize them. Reconsidering them is added as future change consideration. * Automatic update management is not covered due to lack of simple mechanisms and risks associated to it. * iptables, SELinux, polkit etc. have not been added because they are part of LPIC-2/-303. There is no point in teaching candidates how to just turn them off; instead, candidates obey the rules so that they don't run into these constraints in case they were put in place. * gpasswd is not covered because it is assumed that it is better set up groups and permissions in a way to avoid a shared secret for all group members and implement some basic RBAC concepts. * limits.conf relies on pam_limits and therefore belongs to LPIC-2. pam_limits is already covered there. Furthermore, the following future change considerations were added to the LPIC-2 objectives due to the discussion of the LPIC-1 objectives: * Advanced shell scripting (sed -e, set -x, set -o, pipefail, PIPESTATUS, declare) * Filesystem quota (similar to the topic removed from LPIC-1) * Understanding of consistency in backups, e.g. for databases * Let's Encrypt for certification procurement Polkit was added as future consideration to exam 303 and cloning a Linux system was added as future change consideration to exam 304. Again, please comment on these changes if you think something should be different or if you think some of the arguments / reasons are wrong. Fabian On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> wrote: > We might want to start commenting on exam 102 here. >
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
