Timeline for Why was this XAMPP question closed and why are so many XAMPP questions being closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Jan 2, 2013 at 13:01 | comment | added | the-wabbit | @martin's it is up to you to remove the emphasis on XAMPP. The whole "professional capacity" thing is about being at the same technical level. If a developer has badly screwed up his configuration, does not know how to configure DNS for his web hosting and has trouble determining if Windows Firewall is blocking traffic, then the gap is just too wide to allow for a single, concise answer. And if it is, the question does not belong to this Q&A site. Of course, if you are the aforementioned developer, you would not know. But this is where the community tells you by casting close votes. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 0:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 5, 2013 at 3:04 | |||||
| Dec 29, 2012 at 22:10 | comment | added | martin's | To dig a little further. If you took my question and removed XAMPP from the equation, what was it about? It was about one machine, running Apache and several Virtual Hosts needing to be visible from a whole pile of other machines inside a private network without an internal DNS server. Really, that's what the question was about. Forget that XAMPP was used to install Apache. Get my point? The issue had to do with how to, under those conditions, setup firewalls and hosts files. Remove XAMPP and the associated stigma from the equation and you should see that this was definitely on-topic. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 22:07 | comment | added | martin's | Sure. I'd start with: SF is about Production Server software and Hardware and the Professionals who install, support and administer it. Such an opener in the FAQ would even prevent SF and other sites from migrating questions to SF. It defines the environment very tightly. Note that I don't and wouldn't have a problem with *AMP questions being closed summarily if SF was defined this way. How would I? Today, it is not. And, today, it is wrong to reject *AMP questions wholesale. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:48 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - you'll notice that the post you refer to is from 2009. That's an eternity in the life of an online community. Over time, it became clear that the '09 version of the FAQ was not adequate, and that we needed to clarify things. This led to several rounds of FAQ re-writing by the community. If you have suggestions on how the FAQ can be improved, we're all ears. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:44 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - there are very rare occasions where, say, an XAMPP tag would be on-topic, say if a windows admin was trying to figure out how to automatically deploy XAMPP to his software developers. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:44 | comment | added | martin's | I came across this, which is brilliant in many ways: meta.serverfault.com/questions/23/… That seems to refer to an older version of the FAQ, which, in many ways, seems to have had clearer wording. If Jeff Atwood is referring to the FAQ I think it might have a little bit of weight. I really think you need to work hard at creating a solid definition of what SF is and is not. Then mercilessly remove tags (such as XAMPP) that are off topic and you'll have the community you want and visitors will have no doubt what it is about. Not the case today. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:40 | comment | added | martin's | "they were still unable to grasp the topicality of SF". Probably because it isn't at all very clear and it leads to discussions such as this one. Don't fault them. Fault SF for not have really clear guidelines. Why does the XAMPP tag even exist if it is off-topic here? Remove it. Remove all the questions and answers on those topics. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:25 | comment | added | EEAA | Cripes. I use MAMP extensively, and I'm sure others here do the same. XAMPP/MAMP/etc. are fine tools. To be used in development. They fit into the same class of applications as Eclipse or Visual Studio - they are developer tools and as such are off-topic here. Regarding SO, as mentioned elsewhere, they have a long history of migrating questions to SF that are off-topic here. In spite of many MSO discussions on the topic, they were still unable to grasp the topicality of SF, which is why the SO->SF migration path was removed. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:15 | comment | added | martin's | NO SIR. IT ABSOLUTELY IS ABOUT ELITISM. The FAQ does not say anything about the manner in which tools are deployed being a reason for a question NOT belonging in this list. Are you people reading what you are saying? You don't like *AMP packages and that is the only reason these questions are being bounced back and forth between SO, SF and SU mercilessly. To boot, there seems to be some contempt for the SO folks sending questions to SF. Barring anything else the FAQ provides the definition for this community and it does NOT, in any imaginable way exclude *AMP and other techs being down-modded | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 20:47 | comment | added | EEAA | As I commented below, this is not about elitism or any other such nonsense. It's about doing systems administration the right way, which doesn't include *AMP installers. There is certainly no disdain for the LAMP technologies themselves, but rather the manner in which they are deployed (outside of a standard package updating system) and configured (very insecure) using these one-click installers. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 20:42 | comment | added | martin's | Good-enough. Done. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 20:04 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | Nothing is broken. Members of the community with >3000 reputation have the privileges that allows them to vote to close, 5 such members exercised that privilege and closed your question Off Topic. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 19:31 | comment | added | martin's | Then something is broken because it should not have been closed. And, if no moderators closed the question it should not have been used to justify welcoming me by being banned from posting. I post something that clearly fits within the FAQ. No moderators are involved in closing it. I am banned from posting. The algorithm is broken. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:19 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | No ♦ moderators were involved in closing your question. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:07 | answer | added | user9517Mod | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:05 | answer | added | sysadmin1138Mod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 17:43 | history | edited | martin's | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2012 at 17:38 | history | asked | martin's | CC BY-SA 3.0 |