Timeline for Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2013 at 4:05 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | You're choosing to focus on minutia instead of the point of the statement: no SE site embraces theoretical networking questions. Regarding your comment about networking is off-topic for SO, that's technically wrong. Theoretical networking questions are part of Computer Science, which Jeff endorses for SO participation | |
| May 21, 2013 at 3:47 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | NE specifical says "actual problems that you face", theoretical are explicitly off-topic there. So... try again? | |
| May 21, 2013 at 3:44 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | FYI, the biggest problem with status quo (before the beta site proposal) is that theoretical networking questions fall through the cracks of both SO and SF... neither community truly embraces them, although sometimes you can sneak one through on SO (and Jeff officially said they are welcome there... different story for close-voters who love to hammer anything pure networking on SO)... disclaimer: I have not even signed up for the beta, but I am a professional network engineer and I've been somewhat frustrated by options for supporting my profession on SE to date | |
| May 15, 2013 at 15:17 | vote | accept | TheCleaner | ||
| May 14, 2013 at 15:03 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Others and I brought that up while the site was being proposed. A similar site proposal was already closed as a Dupe of SF. Apparently the Network Administrators are completely hung up on the name "Server Fault" and that they're not specifically mentioned in the FAQ as belonging (where System Administrators are). This was largely the same logic as the DBA site; which is active and healthy, though I believe largely at Server Fault's expense. Also, Unix & Linux is completely overlapped with Server Fault and Super User. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 14:58 | comment | added | TheCleaner | So why have a Network Engineering site at all then? Why wasn't it told "SF already covers all of this...no need for another site"? | |
| May 14, 2013 at 14:48 | history | answered | Chris SMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |