0

I am talking about this Keep windows offline but allow connectivity for specific apps and its comments.

Two things are annoying me.

First. The O.P. asked perfectly "business" question and instantly gets pressed that "ServerFault is not for home user questions", I suppose, for using Windows 7, by @djdomi.

It is impossible in the business that someone install server at home, in the garage, in the basement, whatever, and then used it for making a profit? Even if that is non-profit server, that still could be business; I know a story about one very popular Russian resource, which for some period of time lived at home of one of admins.

Does it belong to the ServerFault? There was no clear answer in the Meta, I considered some related questions here: 4, 1049, 2363, 2695 (lists some supposedly "truly home-user" questions), 2713 (very detailed and concrete discussion) , a general line that I got was: not the hardware (desktop/dedicated server, home router/"professional" router, mac mini) and not the particular placement (home, basement, office, garage) and not the specific software (desktop windows, linux, server windows, mac os) makes the system and the question "business" or "home-user", but the attitude and topic. It is very normal for business to consider risks, and decide that risks are not worth buying, say, Dell server, or Windows Server, or Cisco ASA, or whatever and installing into some data center, and they may decide to run Windows 7 at desktop h/w at home for some time being. This could be very reasonable and correct business decision (for example, from the economical standpoint), and it doesn't make the question "home-user". Am I right?

The second. The question itself presents some way to address network security and asks if it's normal and are there any better solutions. And there is very good comment from @bjoster, who is suggesting better solution. But also he noticed that the attemted solution is "unreasonable practice in a business environment" and he suggested closure just because of that. Why? Should questions stating bad or unreasonable solutions be regarded as off topic, when they ask if the stated solutions are bad and asking for better practice? Is asking for a reasonable practice bad and off-topic? What if the O.P. removes information about their current solution, just leaving the "how to make it secure", will be the question better? In my opinion, no, the best is to leave as is, and this comment should be made into the answer (and accepted eventually).

2

Although there are multiple questions in your post, the main one seems to be: "Does it belong on ServerFault?"

Multiple users think it doesn't belong and I agree, so it's closed now, with the "questions should demonstrate reasonable IT management practices" reason.

In one form or another, this has been a close reason on SF for many years. Although it hasn't been discussed recently, in the past the consensus has always been that we don't want questions that ask how to do something that most would consider to be a long ways away from a best practice.

1
  • 1
    Yes, I noticed you were always on the "don't belong" side. What about questions like "is this setup adequate"? It's normal for them to cite inadequate setup, this is the purpose of the question to verify it. The question in the question is like that. Is it normal to close them as citing inadequate solution rather than answering with that and explaining why? Oct 27 at 8:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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