Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Andy Goldschmidt wrote: >> That topic doesn't suggest "chkconfig" at all. >> ======================================== >> 101.3 [large snip on chkconfig and similar convenience tools]
Always the difficult decision about what tools to and what tools not to test for knowledge on. What candidates should _really_ know is how to figure out the bootup sequence, be it via SysV style scripts, startup, rc scripts (a la Slackware), etc; i.e., how does the system boot? Problem becomes, how to test for _that_ kind of knowledge. So we expect them to know S## and K## startup sequences and how to manipulate them (via chkconfig, update-* scripts, etc.). (And while these scripts work 99.9% of the time, there are instances where a startup script needs to be moved to earlier or later in the sequence and that becomes of real test of an admins troubleshooting and cognitive abilities.) *Sigh* Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for this, and if someone could figure it out easily, I'm sure it would have been integrated into the test. Meanwhile, I'd say some testing of these convenience tools (and soon whatever tools upstart uses) will be necessary. Debian squeeze has introduced upstart (with backward compatibility and a big warning that should be unnecessary for folks advanced enough to test it). And I'm sure others here will agree with me that some of these tools replace other tools that aren't broken (often removing or not providing features) just because it's new (gnu?) and shiny. Whatever happenend to "if it ain't borked ..." My thoughts and worth what you paid for them. Ciao, David A. Bandel _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
