[OT] Re: Naming (Was Re: [lpi-discuss] General comments on LPI levels) -- 101 v. 001

[Bryan J. Smith]

Jon maddog Hall <maddog at li.org> wrote:
> So wo says the testing "starts with 1".
> Some day there may be a "test zero".

Indeed.

Let's also all remember that "Something 101" is _not_ always
the "lowest level."  Many colleges have a "Something 001" or
"051" or "091" if people are lacking pre-requisite knowledge.
 If someone is lacking user-level UNIX/Linux knowledge, then
they cannot become UNIX/Linux System Administrators.

Being that I helped finalize some of the newer 101/102 exams,
I had to walk this "fine line" because I provide Linux
training as a normal job function at times.  My slides were
typically titled Linux 001, 002, 051, 052, 091, 092, 093, 094
and 095 for everything from general OS/Freedomware concepts
(00x) to user concepts (05x) to power user/pre-administration
(09x).

00x included coverage of UNIX/Windows history to a
high-level, non-technical dissection of what makes up an OS
-- kernel, compiler, libraries, applications, etc...

05x included coverage of basic command-line interface (CLI)
usage.

09x included coverage of advanced CLI, filesystem layout,
system configuration fundamentals, service fundamentals --
including differences between local/network authentication,
directory, file, print and other services, etc...  In a
nutshell, I took them on a tour of Linux.

These were all things that were _not_ listed in the LPI
Objectives nor did they map to them.

In the case where LPIC-1 training was also provided (almost
in every case), someone else (Randall Perry is who I
typically partnered with) created and provided the 101 and
102 slides and training -- mapped directly to the objectives.
 So it made it a crapload easier for my colleague who did the
101 and 102 training to get through and focus on the
objectives of the exam -- without being burdened with
elementary CLI, filesystem, etc... questions.

He could focus solely on accomplishing the tasks in the exam,
instead of stopping to explain every motion (or at least it
was a "review" for the students if he had to).

> So you see, numbers are flexible.  You could even have
> negative numbered tests.

Oh man, I've got some people I want to see those applied to!
<big ass evil grin ;->

> Which reminds me of the time I gave one of my students the
> grade of "G", one grade lower than an "F"......but that is
> another story.

G for ... "Great"?!?!?!



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)