Skip to main content
Server Fault

Return to Answer

replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

This question seems to be largely a duplicate of:

Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?

The takeaway from that earlier discussion is that the way NE is currently defined, it overlaps 100% with SF - any question that's on-topic there is also on-topic here. So it doesn't make sense to have an off-topic migration path from here to there.

This question seems to be largely a duplicate of:

Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?

The takeaway from that earlier discussion is that the way NE is currently defined, it overlaps 100% with SF - any question that's on-topic there is also on-topic here. So it doesn't make sense to have an off-topic migration path from here to there.

This question seems to be largely a duplicate of:

Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?

The takeaway from that earlier discussion is that the way NE is currently defined, it overlaps 100% with SF - any question that's on-topic there is also on-topic here. So it doesn't make sense to have an off-topic migration path from here to there.

Source Link
Ward - Trying Codidact Mod
Ward - Trying Codidact Mod
  • 13k
  • 1
  • 41
  • 73

This question seems to be largely a duplicate of:

Will/Should Serverfault be dropping the "networking support" in the upcoming future?

The takeaway from that earlier discussion is that the way NE is currently defined, it overlaps 100% with SF - any question that's on-topic there is also on-topic here. So it doesn't make sense to have an off-topic migration path from here to there.