After a successful edit round, it is time to vote on the results. The text below is the edited text we've worked on for the past week.

This will be open until UTC 0:00 Friday (3 days!) to gather votes.

As before, this will need a 2/3rds majority (only counting upvotes) for approval. If we don't reach it, we'll do a second edit round.

Server Fault is for Information Technology Professionals needing expert answers on topics related to managing or maintaining computer systems in a professional capacity for their company or clients.

If your question is about…

and it is not about…

… then you’re in the right place to ask your question!

We also have sister sites that cover specific topics in more detail:

  • StackOverflow for Programming.
  • SuperUser for general Networking, Hardware, and Technology.
  • Unix & Linux for general Unix/Linux usage.
  • DBA for Advanced Database topics.
  • IT Security for Advanced Security (implementation, theory, white hat).

We also have…

… a list of the most common questions with links to the "best" answer we've identified.

  • 7
    I strongly dislike the aesthetic of having tags inline. It makes it hard to read. If those were changed to links it would still achieve the intended purpose without making it look horrible. Also, it's "Super User", not "SuperUser", and "Stack Overflow", not "StackOverflow". – nhinkle Feb 7 '12 at 3:20
  • 1
    I've got no problem with links instead of tags (I started the tag business based on DBA's FAQ[ -- Our stylesheet is substantially uglier, but prettying that up is a matter for another debate). I'm content to leave capitalization/formatting of site names to the SE team - I assume that they will at least cast their eyes over this and make sure we aren't making any tragic mistakes. – voretaq7 Feb 7 '12 at 4:04
  • 2
    Ok, we need/want a 2/3rds majority but is there some minimum number of votes for it to pass or are we just using the time limit? Just curious. – John Gardeniers Feb 7 '12 at 6:24
  • 3
    changing tags to links sounds like a good idea. It would make for a more compact read – the-wabbit Feb 7 '12 at 7:37
  • 3
    I'd prefer links to tags too. It's a good compromise between keeping the tags and getting rid of them, and will allow the grammatical inconsistencies to be resolved. – Bryan Feb 7 '12 at 7:57
  • @JohnGardeniers I want over 100 total votes, which would bring it to about 20-25% of the votes cast for moderators. I have an open question about using a System Message to point main-site users to this poll. If we get that, we might actually break 50. – sysadmin1138 Feb 7 '12 at 12:46
  • Is it too late to make [windows-server-2008] say [windows-server-2008-r2] since that's the latest? I know it's a bit late, but it doesn't change the substance. – MDMarra Feb 7 '12 at 15:07
  • 1
    Changing tags to links was suggested in the editing round and wasn't accepted. If anything, I'd prefer to add to the visual appeal you get by breaking up blocks of text by putting in icons for the sister sites and figuring some way to work tags into the off-topic subject lists. – Ward - Reinstate Monica Feb 8 '12 at 2:40

Yes, this FAQ is good enough. Approved.

  • 13
    Provisionally approved with the caveat that if stripping "no exceptions" from the Home setting line manages to top 10 upvotes we should proceed with it. (I'm holding off locking that edit round to see if it makes it) – voretaq7 Feb 7 '12 at 4:00
  • 3
    Agreed, because corporate use of the home environment is an exception. – Bryan Feb 7 '12 at 7:49
  • 1
    Indeed, we should strip the "no exceptions". – Bart De Vos Feb 7 '12 at 10:38
  • 7
    I strongly disagree with removing the "no exceptions" part. I think people are confusing "Home Setting" with "Location that happens to also be a Home", they weren't intended to be the same and maybe that line needs to be worded differently. Any Questions with the intentions of being used by a Non-Professional user should already be Off-Topic. That line was simply trying to restate the fact for the specific case of non-professional home users (particularly those who might be using enterprise equipment for non-professional uses). – Chris S Feb 7 '12 at 14:01
  • 4
    Leaving the "no exceptions" in there will very likely result in perfectly legitimate questions being flagged or voted as OT. Strictly speaking a "Location that happens to also be a Home" IS a "Home Setting". While most of us are intelligent enough to be able to tell the practical difference there will be plenty around who either can't tell the difference or won't be bothered to make the distinction. – John Gardeniers Feb 7 '12 at 20:28
  • What if "home setting" was replaced with "hobbyist setting", or something to that effect. – user62491 Feb 7 '12 at 20:42
  • @JohnGardeniers Exactly what I was driving at. The only alternative I can think of is, "Anything not connected with the work place", although, in context with "and is not about...", would make it a double negative. – Bryan Feb 7 '12 at 21:53
  • @kce, we get quite a few questions about home settings where the poster don't see themselves as hobbyists. e.g. A sysadmin setting up a lab at home. – John Gardeniers Feb 7 '12 at 22:03
  • @JohnGardeniers: Oh well that makes sense. We'll just have to assume new users can exercise some context-awareness. – user62491 Feb 7 '12 at 23:20
  • 4
    vortetaq7's post re stripping the "no exceptions" has 11 votes now, so will that change get included? – John Gardeniers Feb 8 '12 at 6:52

No, this needs more work. Rejected.

  • 1
    +1 for "tags" and "no exceptions" as detailed above. – Bryan Feb 7 '12 at 7:59
  • 1
    I can't condone the ban on “circumventing … policy”. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Feb 7 '12 at 13:36
  • 9
    @Gilles Policy circumvention has been discussed time and again. If you're a professional Systems Admin, you won't be circumventing policy. Doing so is, by definition, unprofessional. – MDMarra Feb 7 '12 at 15:06
  • 2
    Small nit to pick: The sentence goes like this - "If your question is about [blah] and it is not about [blah] then you’re in the right place to ask your question!" However that seems too strongly typed. Someone could think "Well I don't see my exact system..." so it might be nice to place some kind of ambiguity in there. "If your question is about things like..." – Wesley Feb 9 '12 at 3:58
  • 1
    @WesleyDavid, while on the surface it would appear you're correct, if you actually read the parts you replaced with [blah] things are completely different. A person who can't see those tags/links as merely examples, despite the inclusion of words such as "including" or "such as", probably isn't the person we want posting on SF. – John Gardeniers Feb 9 '12 at 20:38
  • 1
    I think we should be more explicit about what we mean by "circumventing security or policy". I think we all know what we mean by that, but if someone is reading a FAQ, he might think twice about posting a question on the edge of that, and that's detrimental to the community. – wfaulk Feb 9 '12 at 20:51
  • 1
    @wfaulk: I don't think we will loose anything worthwhile if some borderline acceptable questions regarding policy circumventing etc. don't get posted. – Sven Feb 9 '12 at 21:28
  • I have no problem with "circumventing ... policy". It's "circumventing security" that bugs me. Sysadmins do that somewhat frequently in password recovery, file recovery, etc. – wfaulk Feb 10 '12 at 1:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .