[lpi-discuss] General comments on LPI levels
mark.miller at lpi.org
Wed Sep 14 11:54:31 EDT 2005
Thank you for your input to this important discussion. We need all the
opinions we can get. We listen to all such inputs carefully. I'm making
some comments to certain areas.
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 17:15 -0700, Evan Blomquist wrote:
> First, a comment on the workstation/server thread...
> I think both server and workstation topics flow across both levels of
> exams, it all depends on the context in which they are approached. I
> would expect a level 1 person to understand how to start and stop
> services, along with managing general administration and security on a
> server. A level 2 person should know how to plan for, implement, and
> scale required services. It's the difference between a Technician and
> an Engineer, which IMHO should be the poster children for levels 1 and 2
> respectively. Same idea with Workstation configuration, it's an
> Engineer who translates a set of requirements into a technical solution
> while it's the Technician who may actually perform the work. They both
> need to know how things work, but they approach the available tools in a
> different context.
Generally this is what we have and what we intend.
> I keep seeing references to 'non', 'newbie', 'junior', 'intermediate',
> and 'advanced' System Administrators, but have no idea how LPI
> classifies these subjective terms. Again, more clarification would be
> helpful, and that clarification starts with a clear understanding of the
> test candidate, which I find lacking at LPI.
"Junior" simple comes from the SAGE sysadmin job descriptions. I'm not
sure what you feel that we lack in understanding the test candidate.
Maybe I should worry about that. Can you expand on that thought?
> The difference between the level 1 and level 2 objectives are
> ambiguous. Many of the same keywords, commands, and topics span both
> objective lists with few clues as to differentiation. Level 2 doesn't
> seem to address much more than how well a candidate can memorize
> additional command line options of the level 1 material.
I agree that we need to differentiate the two more. Others do not.
Strong input one way or the other right now might sway things. As we
approach the formal JTA (as opposed to the less involved objective
review going on now) this must be looked at and resolved. I strongly
urge you and all others out there to go to the public wiki and make
specific comments on how we can improve.
> Finally, I agree with Ross on specialization. At some point during
> technical puberty you assess whether you are suited more to be an
> Administrator or Developer. Regardless, there are fundamental skills
> and knowledge that are common to both, afterwhich you shouldn't have to
> be further subjected to the 'other side.'
I also agree and it looks like this is the path LPI will take. The exact
specializations are still open to discussion. If you can make a solid
case for any given specialization then I suppose we could do that. The
obvious ones (and the most likely right now) are distribution specific,
LAMP, and perhaps Security and Samba (or Linux/Windows Integration).
> I've read the LPIC objectives many times, but still have a difficult
> time to comment on them because they appear to me as more of a topic
> list rather than well-stated objectives.
Coming from a formal background in training development I must agree
that the objectives are certainly not in correct Mager style objective
format. They are more like task lists than true objectives. They do
however rise to the level we need so there is little desire to make the
changes needed to put them in a format more like what a course developer
Exam Development Level 1
Linux Professional Institute
More information about the lpi-discuss