Bret Busby wrote: > From what I understand, from the LPI web site, the "vendor neutral" > thing, relates to having skills and knowledge that do not relate to a > particular distribution. > > From http://www.lpi.org/en/certification.html ; > "The LPI Certification Program is: > Distribution-neutral, verifying knowledge on any standard Linux system". > > Thus, to specialise in a particular distribution, appears to me, to be > inconsistent with the assertion of being "vendor neutral". Notsomuch a > criticism, as an observation. That's essentially correct, although I don't think the inconsistency is a major one. The core certification remains distribution-independent; a candidate who passes the new 103 test will simply be demonstrating additional Ubuntu-specific knowledge. It's possible that people might perceive a weakening of the core philosophy of LPI, but I think that's more a perception than reality. > On the web page at http://www.lpi.org/en/obj_101.html , the Objectives > of exam 101, include distribution-specific material - package management > for Red Hat and for Debian ; "1.102.5 Use Debian package management", > and "1.102.6 Use Red Hat Package Manager (RPM)". My understanding is > that these are not the only two distribution-specific package management > systems, with, for example, SUSE using YAST (if that is the correct name). > > So, distribution-specific material already exists in the LPI 101 exam, > with the material limited to two of the distributions. Those aren't distribution-specific. RPM is used by SuSE, Mandriva and many other distributions, and is a requirement of the Linux Standards Base, which is why it is supported even by Slackware, these days (though Slackware honours it more "in the breach", as they say). Similarly, other distributions have used the Debian tools, although these days, both camps rely more heavily on front-end tools like yum, etc. The decision was taken in the early days to avoid distribution-specific tools and focus on generics. However, software installation and package management was a sufficiently important area that it couldn't be ignored, despite the fact that there was no single generic package manager for all distributions. So the decision was taken to deal with the two major alternatives, so as to not disadvantage any large single group. According to archived emails I have from back then, this is the only area in which LPI certification makes any concession to variations between distributions. Everything else has been kept as generic as possible. -- Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature