On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 10:52 -0500, Ian Shields wrote: > > "G. Matthew Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would say minimally: > > > > > > 1. knowledge of .bash_history > > > 2. history command > > > 3. !n > > > 4. !-n > > 5. !<string> > > Does anyone think that this is far enough (I actually prefer #5 over > #3 and > > #4 for LPIC-1)? > > Frankly, I hardly ever use the above history commands. If I can't find > what I want using ctrl-r, or a few presses of the up arrow, I'm out of > luck. I think the impact of readline on history editing is more > important today, than the original set of arcane commands that > mattered more when you were using a slow dialup line. Editing history > in vi or emacs mode beats remembering another set of obscure commands. > My two cents worth. > Ian, I agree with this comment, in principal. I'm more likely to use the emacs bindings than the history command, too. I guess I do what taki does with languages; switch back and forth without realizing it.
However...considering that we don't even expect these guys to know emacs, is it fair for us to expect them to learn the bindings? And don't get me started on the vi bindings, what a pain those are. And there's always the arrows. Everyone gets that quickly. As for Alan's comments, HISTSIZE et al would be more LPIC-2 level content (more for the esotericness, not that we should be testing it at all). Perhaps, it's enough then to leave it at history and .bash_history? Just from a security POV, they need to know about the history file. I mentioned having to edit out my passwords, right? :) Regards, --matt _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
