[lpi-examdev] [offtopic] Re: LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 06:35:08 -0400 "G. Matthew Rice" > wrote: >> Probably better to use the unambiguous term '0b11rd'. :) > > You've got a point here! :-) "Is this a crossover episode

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 06:35:08 -0400 "G. Matthew Rice" wrote: [...] > Probably better to use the unambiguous term '0b11rd'. :) You've got a point here! :-) -- Alessandro Selli http://alessandro.route-add.net VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net Chiavi PGP/GPG keys:

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

I have no idea why GBoard keeps auto-correcting "of my" with "m f", but this is the 3rd time I haven't caught it before sending. Surely makes for an interesting suggestion in North American slang though. ;) - bjs On Monday, October 16, 2017, Bryan Smith wrote: > On Monday,

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On 16/10/2017 01:40, 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

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Monday, October 16, 2017, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

Il 16/10/2017 12:35, G. Matthew Rice ha scritto: > 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

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

HI All, vi/vim is must user for all SysAdmins. For Linux Users, is nano, because no complicat, both need present on LPIC-1. vi is native for all distribution Linux 2017-10-16 8:35 GMT-02:00 G. Matthew Rice : > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Alessandro Selli >

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

kenn...@floss.cat wrote: > 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

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:40:27 +0200 Anselm Lingnau > wrote: >> I'm 100% in favour of getting rid of editors altogether in LPIC-1, on the >> grounds that: >> >> (a) there is no clear

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

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

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 11:26:17 +0200 Alessandro Selli wrote: [...] > default initramfs, which means it's the only editor available on the grub > command line. Sorry, of course I meant from the initramfs command line. -- Alessandro Selli

Re: [lpi-examdev] LPIC-1 Exam 101 Objectives Discussion

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:40:27 +0200 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