G. Matthew Rice wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Marc Baudoin<[email protected]> wrote: [...]
>> In 103.1, . and source would make more sense in 105.2. > I think that it would better in 105.1 (ie. for sourcing bashrcs and > login/logouts). And revisited in 105.2 (or left as an 'aha' moment). > > Opinions? I've moved it to 105.1 until I hear otherwise from people. I agree. >> Is exec >> really useful (if it is, I would also suggest to move it to >> 105.2)? > Yes, it's useful. Why have a shell process kicking around when you > really want something else to take over. > > Plus, I find using exec to redirect file descriptors very useful. > This isn't the best article/forum post on the matter but it > illustrates my point: > > > http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/18899/when-would-you-use-an-additional-file-descriptor > > I don't think that we cover this aspect of exec in the LPI exams, though. > > I think that you're right about it being in 105.2, though. Doing an > exec on the command line isn't usually what someone wants. I usually use it when I run su on remote terminals, to make sure I won't leave around an idle network login when I exit just once. [...] >> I still find it hard to deal with shared libraries with people >> with no knowledge of C programming. Let's face it, most systems >> administrators nowadays know nothing about C and the POSIX API, >> which also makes their understanding of the operating system much >> more superficial. Does the 102.3 subtopic, with only 1 question >> in the exam, needs to be maintained here? It would make much more >> sense in 201. > I'd vote 'yes' to keeping it. IMO, it's essential knowledge. I think the same way. [...] >> In 109.2, configuration files (/etc/network/interfaces, >> /etc/sysconfig/network and >> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*) should be covered (they >> are used by ifup, which is in the objectives). > We're getting into distro specifics here (albeit, prevalent ones). > I'm not against adding them at an "awareness" level but I don't think > that we need to cover the innards. > > Opinions anyone? To me it looks like the same situation as per the package install commands: rpm and yum vs. dpkg* and apt*. On one side, they are distribution specific, but not to a single distribution, rather to a family of like, widespread distributions. If we do cover /etc/sysconfig/network* RH stuff, we should also cover /etc/network/* DB stuff (I actually think covering just /etc/network/interfaces suffices). >> 109.4 should immediately follow 109.2 and so >> /etc/resolv.conf, /etc/hosts and /etc/nsswitch.conf should not be >> covered in 109.2. > hosts + nsswitch.conf (hosts: files ...) != DNS > > I did drop resolv.conf from 109.2, though. It is DNS. 109.1 "Fundamentals of internet protocols" lists port 53 (domain) in the "Knowledge about common TCP and UDP ports" section, though. [...] > If anyone made it this far, let me know if you have a problem with any > of the changes. No problem. The proposed changes sound reasonable. Alessandro _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
