In several of my responses, both recently and prior, I mentioned a possible "identification" aspect to what I'll call "alternative" or, more recently, "deprecated" technologies and/or objectives. I did this largely because some people insist on making the LPI objectives a list of everything a Linux sysadmin should know -- so any training teaches it? Although that objective is impossible, I think there is merit to at least having an entry that ensures people are "aware" of either "alternatives" or, even more relevant, "deprecated" technologies.
I'll use LILO as the most recent example of "deprecated." From the standpoint of mainstream, within 3 sigma _installation_ (over 99% of installed distributions), it is deprecated. It has been deprecated for some time within 3 sigma. As I stated prior, if it was over 5 years ago, GRUB and LILO would have been game for equivalent inclusion as the "boot loader" for any sysadmin. But within the last 5 years, GRUB has largely taken over that role, and is now -- today -- the defacto-standard in the 3 sigma of installations (which is really my own, defined "litmus test" for "absolute industry standard"). So any discussion of LILO now becomes an "alternative," one of advanced GRUB v. LILO concepts, mainly in how the boot loader operates at a lower level. That, by its very nature, makes it a non-consideration for LPIC-1 inclusion. However, LILO is more than just an "alternative." It is a "deprecated" technology. While many people discuss and even argue for inclusion of various "alternative" technologies/implementation -- sometimes even questioning why 1-2 implementations are in the objectives -- one could argue such views are "subjective." But when it comes to a "deprecated" technology, there is a good chance even a junior sysadmin could run into it -- let alone there will be distros still using it out there. So what should we do? All this goes back to the consideration, "should there be mentioned of implementations and technologies" in the LPI Objectives? We only have so many exam questions. We also have only so many implementations we can focus on, as I regularly point at, within the typical 2-3 sigma distribution (over 96% to well over 99%) of available Linux installations. But is there merit to at least a mention, such as for "identification," of "deprecated" technologies? If there is one example that makes a good one, I would argue LILO. It's still out there and used by a very select, minority -- but still significant -- number of distros. It was also used by earlier releases of the most popular distributions. As the former "defacto industry standard" boot loader, I think it warrants and inclusion as a "deprecated" standard that should get at least a mention for "identification" purposes -- far more than just any "alternative" should. And I'm sure there are a few others. How LPI attempts to address this, I have no idea, and leave it to those who understand the process and are more involved with it than I. I know and even agree with the great resistance to not mention anything not covered over all of the first three (3) levels of Bloom's Taxonomy in the objectives. But maybe there's merit to mention and cover very select, very popular (even if only previously) "deprecated" technologies at the lowest level -- such as identification of LILO. -- Bryan J Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith ------------------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
