On Mon, 9/22/08, G. Matthew Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've written general overview of the changes being made > to the LPIC-1 and LPIC-2 objectives. This is more meant > for management, executive and news types but I thought > that you may find it a better first read than the 1100 > lines of "stuff" that I sent out earlier today. > As before, I've inlined the document for comment as > well as including an attached version.
Matt -- Let me be the latest to commend you for continuing to keep this program going, and going very well. You've got a crapload to balance, and I know it never ends, especially the lack of thanx. You can't please everyone, but I note that you do your damnest to try to reach everyone with various approaches to communication that will reach those who truly care (instead of the "go look at the ## pages of objectives," even if that is more than acceptable for this type of operation). Just wanted you to know. -- Bryan P.S. I'm going to bring this up, because -- well -- I want to. You know, that whole "complement then ask" type of politicking. ;) So ... Are we considering a small, minimal objective on SELinux for LPIC-1/LPIC-2? I'm not talking about how to write rules, set it up, troubleshooting, etc... (that would be LPIC-3 Security). I'm just talking about how to list a context (e.g., ls -Z), restore contexts when people accidentally delete/move/remove them (e.g., restorecon) and things start to break with audit throwing out very straight-forward messages. Nothing whereby people have to understand different SELinux security contents, or other, administriva with regards to SELinux. I assume that is for the next update? _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
