Timeline for How do you define "sysadmin related"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:07 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Nov 15, 2009 at 18:06 | comment | added | Nonapeptide | ...however, the pursuit of that change might expose some heretofore unappreciated borkedness. One problem I see so far that could seriously hamper discussions is the way this site lays out discussions. It's difficult to respond to posts and continue a side discussion with the way comments are layed out. That might imply that indeed this site isn't best suited for "deep dive" discussions. The more I think about it the more it seems like sysadmin-network.com is a good example of how this desire could/should be fulfilled. | |
| Nov 15, 2009 at 18:00 | comment | added | Nonapeptide | Exactly! Be the change you want to see. Also, don't give up when it doesn't work out like you want it to on the first, second or fiftieth try. Anything worth pursuing should be worth the repeated efforts (assuming that there's nothing much more fundamentally borked underneath). Let's see if we can get some hardcore community wiki discussions rolling. | |
| Nov 15, 2009 at 2:44 | comment | added | Evan Anderson | @DLux: I was calling you out re: the Exchange discussion because of your question "I would love to see some deep discussion ... but how would that work here?" followed by the incongruous statement "...let's look at hte TCO of running Exchange...". Since you weren't sure how one discussion was going to work, I was confused by how you thought another might. If you want to have those discussions ask a question to get one started! Throw a bounty on it if you want to attract more traffic. I'll pitch in my viewpoint and others will as well. If that's what you want from the site, make it happen. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 18:12 | comment | added | Nonapeptide | I wish Tom Limoncelli was here. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:57 | comment | added | Dennis Williamson | I think they play much rougher over at SO than here. I think the difference has as much or more to do with 1) the inherent difference in the industry and 2) the fact that JA and JS have an established programmer following and we don't have an admin figurehead to bring traffic here. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:55 | comment | added | DLux | Yea, closed. :rolleyes: | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:47 | comment | added | DLux | "This is a Q&A site" seems to be a common excuse (even From Mr. Atwood). Maybe you are right and this site isn't what I am looking for; however, I think you will find may people on here that agree with me. The fact that SF only garners 5% of the traffic compared to SO is telling. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:31 | comment | added | Nonapeptide | Good point Evan. So let's go create a SysAdmin roundtable discussion site and call it a day. =) | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:17 | comment | added | Evan Anderson | @DLux: So, how would a discussion about the "TCO of running Exchange on premise" work any better? This is a Q&A site, and the engine isn't well suited to discussions. Frankly, I think you want something that this site isn't. Maybe it will "fail" because "serious" sysadmins don't need Q&A. Maybe it will "succeed" with more entry-level and beginning sysadmins because they do want a place to ask (or refer to others having already asked) more "beginning" questions. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:16 | comment | added | joeqwerty | @DLux: One solution might be too implement some type of categorization\forum style (instead of tags) that would allow people to hone in and focus on those categories of system administration that interest them most. Another option would be to pay closer attention to the tags and avoid the questions that you think fall into the areas you find beginner-ish or uninteresting. I tend to look at the title of the question and tags and only click on those I find interesting or think I can contribute to. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 4:02 | comment | added | DLux | @joeqwerty - Those questions are fine, but not when they are 90% of the content here. Of course, maybe that is the goal of the site and I should follow SpaceManSpiff out the door.... | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:59 | comment | added | DLux | @Evan - I would love to see some deep discussion on things like management policies, but how would that work here? It would end up as a long string of comments just like this question. :) As for interesting questions, let's look at something like the TCO of running Exchange on premise versus purchasing a hosted solution? Or maybe a comparison of remote access solutions that look at ease of deployment, cost, end user support, policy control and ability to navigate through firewalls hostile to my remote users. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:55 | comment | added | joeqwerty | @Karl & @DLux: What you're saying is based on your frame of reference and your experience. If I'm a new sysadmin responsible for one server and 10 workstations and I have a question about setting up a DHCP server, is that question too beginner-ish? Maybe for you, but not for me and isn't that the purpose of this site: to be a tool for sysadmins of all levels who manage systems of all sizes. If we weeded out questions and users based on our own frame of reference and experience then in pretty short order Evan and a few others would be the only ones left who weren't asking beginner-ish questions | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:52 | comment | added | DLux | Is the site so broken we need to circumvent the question upvoting? ;) | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:51 | comment | added | Evan Anderson | I can only confess that I may have no basis for comparison. I haven't been as taken by any other community IT support-related sites and I've spent no time comparing Server Fault to the "competition". Perhaps I'm guilty of enjoying answering "beginner" questions a bit too much. I'd be interested to see some references to "deep in the trenches" questions that you find interesting. Personally, I'd much rather have a subjective discussion of management policies than, say, banter about some particular odd behaviour of some IOS version. Vendor tech support is for that, IMO. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 | comment | added | DLux | I think Karl hit the nail on the head. The site is really filled with beginner questions (and answers), and it takes some effort to filter through them. From time to time that is interesting, but it is certainly rare to see some of the more difficult deployment/config/troubleshooting questions that come up on other sites. I guess I had high hopes based on the success of Stack Overflow which probably led to my disappointment here. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:37 | comment | added | Karl Katzke | Evan: The interesting questions come from the people who are deep in the trenches. The few interesting questions get lost in the flood of lame questions. The difficult questions don't necessarily get answered because the deep-in-the-trenches sysadmins have mostly left. The topic of the site is too broad and except for the n00b questions that flood the site, the "interesting" questions are better served by focused communities. | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:34 | comment | added | Evan Anderson | What does it mean for the site to "succeed"? I'd like to see a common frame of reference w/ respect to this "success" that's been mentioned on here and on meta. I, for one, care rather deeply about Server Fault because it's been the source of a lot of fulfillent and enjoyment. I also haven't been particular disappointed by the "tone" of the site. I'd like to see more traffic, but there's rarely a day that goes by that I don't see a question that's engaging and fun to respond to (or, if I'm late to the party, that's fun to read and comment on). | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 3:13 | history | answered | DLux | CC BY-SA 2.5 |