On Wednesday 26 November 2008 19:36:03 Bryan J. Smith wrote: > 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, I hear you and on the face of it, what you say does indeed make sense. I see two problems implementing it: 1. Where is line that says something is now deprecated and is subject to correct identification only? We could use your 3 sigma method (a good method for use in the real world), but all that really seems to accomplish is avoiding the question "Should this be in the Objectives?" to the different question "Is this deprecated?" 2. From my point of view, the correct approach for an LPIC-1 when confronted with something unusual is "Google it". LILO is sufficiently rarely encountered in real life that we can demand graduates can actually do this successfully. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
