On 25 June 2014 14:04, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25/06/2014 11:17, Alexandru Juncu wrote: >> On 25 June 2014 12:08, Alessandro Selli <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2014 17:52, Ingo Wichmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> what has reiserfs to do with today's requirements? >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-1_Objectives_V4#104.1_Create_partitions_and_filesystems >>>>> >>>>> Ingo >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> LPI is often 3 to 5 yeasrs behind the curve - what is examined isn't >>>> today's latest, greatest and best, it is rather yesterday's proven. >>>> >>>> There's probably a non-trivial number of reiserfs systems still out >>>> there and employers except admins to deal with them. >>>> >>>> Having said that, a time will come when reiser is considered truly eof >>>> for LPI purposes and it will be dropped from the exam. I don't know if >>>> that time is now yet, but it's worth discussion. >>>> >>> >>> I agree. Reiserfs is indeed legacy, but still in use. I might be >>> wrong, but I think major distributions still offer reiserfs an an >>> optional FS to format the installation media. >> >> >> Slightly offtopic, but I think LPI should reconsider the 'legacy' policy. >> >> I think that LPIC-1 at least should be more generic, with only the >> things that are widely used (and the things that we know will be >> widely used in a couple of years). >> >> And the things that 'are still in use' but with limited scope, should >> be something for the more specialized LPIC-2. >> >> LPIC-1 is getting to more and more people. Training a lot of people on >> things that are used in only a handful of situations, doesn't make >> much practical sense. But I do agree that we need specialists that >> know how to use some legacy things that are still critical. But that's >> why LPIC-2 is an Advanced level and not a Junior level certification. >> So detail things should be in LPIC-2 and not in 1. > > > The most important aspect to consider is the effect on training > providers - they can't be expected to update their training docs > rapidly, it upsets them. Second thing is what it takes to update the > exam with an objective change. > > This is why objectives are updated on a 2 year cycle (perhaps longer?) > and why changes only happen in that window. Discussion can of course > happen at any time.
I wasn't arguing the interval of the changes. I was arguing that when changes are made, legacy things should be easier to drop (for LPIC-1). _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
