Timeline for ServerFault Fundamentalism
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2013 at 22:47 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @alex The other thing to remember is where might a question get a good answer. Rather than looking to gerrymander the on-topic/off-topic sections of a site's FAQ, a much better thing to consider is where a question will get highest quality answers. For example, questions about a "home server" will generally get better answers on Super User because there are more experienced in that scenario there. There are a lot of assumptions about doing things "the right way" that we make as pros on this site, whereas on superuser they may be more open to "good enough for home use". | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 22:14 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | @Alex: You have to consider broken windows. The vast majority of, for example RaspberryPis (there are many other examples) are not and never will be professional server systems. If we leave them open then others will use them to justify their asking similar questions and thus SF's mission become diluted. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:54 | comment | added | August | @MDMarra I think you misunderstood me. I am not advocating that a question be migrated simply because there is a specific site for the topic. I'm only saying that as more and more specific sites are brought up on SE, the more that is GOING to happen. I thought I made that clear if you read the rest of my comment... | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:52 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Alex Considering the fact that the founders of Stack Exchange, as well as many of the community management employees have been very vocal about this, there's not really anything to disagree about. If there's a database question that's asked on SF and is on topic, we should not migrate it to DBA. If there's a Solaris question that's on topic here and also at Unix, we don't migrate it. It's really cut and dry. Things can be on topic on more than one site. Things shouldn't be shuffled around just because there's a site whose name more closely matches the question. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:44 | comment | added | Alex | @MDMarra, agree to disagree...I think this is a perfect example of what the OP of this meta question was trying to describe and the answer we are commenting being precisely the reason why the question I was referring to was closed. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:40 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Alex It appears that 5 users as well as at least one moderator agree that that specific question is not appropriate for the scope of server fault. It's also getting off of the point a bit. That question aside, if something is on topic here and also on topic at a more specific site, it shouldn't be moved. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:29 | comment | added | Alex | @MDMarra, I'm sorry but his question has nothing to do with the platform being used. The question solely relates to vsftpd and umask settings. And the question is absolutely legit from that point of view. On top of that, assuming a Raspberry Pi cannot be used in a professional environment is wrong. We are now testing them as out-of-band console access for our firewalls, switches and routers. Does it mean I would be off-topic as well? | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 17:11 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Alex That question is off-topic for SF, because it's about a Raspberry Pi, which is not a piece of server equipment that is used in a professional capacity. It has nothing to do with it being more on topic elsewhere. If someone asked a question about apache on a real server, we wouldn't migrate it to Unix and Linux just because they were running it on Red Hat, for example. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 16:31 | comment | added | Alex | @MDMArra, It can be on topic on many SE sites...but, just like this question serverfault.com/questions/462710/… I can bet my pocket change that if there is a SE sites specific to the question, it WILL be closed as off-topic. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 16:03 | comment | added | MDMarra |
@August The more specific SE sites there are, the more likely we are to say "This belongs on <specific SE site> rather than here" - Please read my comment two above. This is the wrong attitude. If someone asks how to do something on their server in bash, it's on topic here, and U&L. That doesn't mean that it should be migrated to U&L if it is also on topic here. If something is asked and is currently on topic, it should not be migrated just because there is a more specific site.
|
|
| Jan 4, 2013 at 12:47 | comment | added | August | I'm with Alex. The more specific SE sites there are, the more likely we are to say "This belongs on <specific SE site> rather than here". On the flipside of this I don't see that even being an issue since those issues that could be migrated to a specific SE site are not if they are sysadmin-related or if they could even translate into a sysadmin scenario. I've only seen us push the power-user type questions to the other sites. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 20:15 | history | edited | mdpc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2013 at 19:05 | comment | added | Alex | @mdpc I think you are mostly proving wfaulk's point. The more SE adds groups with specific topics, the less we will have on-topic questions on SF. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 18:57 | comment | added | MDMarra | Actually, we shouldn't be trying to differentiate ourselves. SE employees have stated multiple times that a question can be on topic on more than one site and shouldn't be migrated away just because it's also on topic somewhere else. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 18:56 | history | edited | mdpc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2013 at 18:45 | comment | added | wfaulk | I honestly don't understand what your point is. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 18:44 | history | answered | mdpc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |