Thanks for an informative answer. I have launched and run a couple of community sites for professionals in the past. I know how tough of a job it can be to deal with the crud that can come in. It can be a tedious and thankless job. I get it. The perspective I am going to ask you to have when considering FAQ language and tag bans isn't that of the kind of user who is compelled to ignore them but that of a new visitor who actually wants to become part of the community is is respectful of such rules. I'll use myself as an example with a hypothetical scenario:

Just changed "and the dedicated" to "for the dedicated". Good point. Clearer?

BTW, I just edited the original post to link to the page of the SE staff member who asked me to post my take on the new FAQ language.

I am asking you what it is about. I have already proposed some language. I am waiting for yours. This is part of the problem. The current definition is very slippery and full of holes and then high-reputation folk apply creative thinking to turn it into whatever they want it to be and punish those daring to post outside THEIR defnition of the site. If my language is not correct, what should it be then? Is the current definition precisely correct?

With regards to the use of "enterprise". It's just a proposal. What term would you propose the FAQ use to clearly describe that SF is not about systems sitting on your desk? The desire of the "clan" seems to be that SF is ONLY about production "heavy iron" systems, their software, related subsystems and virtually nothing else. No office workstations or the software they run unless the software is used to run or administer the "heavy iron" is probably a reasonable extension of that.

"SF is not limited to Server HW and SW and it's not about the professionals who maintain them." OK, I am confused. What is it about then?

Oh please, I used "lists" as a generic term. A lot of people do. With regards to the rest of your comment. I felt the commentary was important.

@EEAA With regards to deleting my answer. SF can't both not like my question and then derive benefit from the work that went into finding an answer. That would not be right. Perhaps this should be a rule across SE: If a question is closed all answers and comments are removed. That would add some weight to closing questions and would be fair on other fronts as well.

@eeaa Sorry, I thought I did. This is a matter of semantics. Take my question and remove XAMPP as the context. What do you have left: Running Apache on an machine serving a bunch of sites via virtual hosts. The question was squarely about setting up Apache and the machines in the internal network. It had to do with httpd.conf and host and how to deal with this within a closed network without an internal DNS server. We can focus all you want on the packaged one-click install but that does not negate that the core of my question was about Apache and networking in a pro environment.

To dig a little further. If you took my question and removed XAMPP from the equation, what was it about? It was about one machine, running Apache and several Virtual Hosts needing to be visible from a whole pile of other machines inside a private network without an internal DNS server. Really, that's what the question was about. Forget that XAMPP was used to install Apache. Get my point? The issue had to do with how to, under those conditions, setup firewalls and hosts files. Remove XAMPP and the associated stigma from the equation and you should see that this was definitely on-topic.

Sure. I'd start with: SF is about Production Server software and Hardware and the Professionals who install, support and administer it. Such an opener in the FAQ would even prevent SF and other sites from migrating questions to SF. It defines the environment very tightly. Note that I don't and wouldn't have a problem with *AMP questions being closed summarily if SF was defined this way. How would I? Today, it is not. And, today, it is wrong to reject *AMP questions wholesale.

@EEAA It is obvious we will not agree on this particular point. I see nothing that indicates that *AMPP does not fall under SF other than what I am choosing to call elitist selection. It's funny, it seems that *AMPP questions have no place in the SE communities. SO an SU FAQ's exclude them and SF folks don't want them. Funny. The reaonsit bothers me so much is that in trying to solve my problem I came across lots of people with similar issues and bad answers. I posted a good answer, one that took probably twenty of effort and the result is a closed answer. I don't understand it.

@EEAA The part that I neglected to mention is that, in my case at least, I spent several additional hours working on the problem. I didn't wait for a magical SF answer. When I did fix the problem I came back to SF and posted the solution. One that, based on my research, would benefit many. Shortly after that the question was closed.

@EEAA Scenario: You are working your tail off to resolve a server problem. Yes, Apache, last time I looked, is server software. You have two dozen workstations that need to connect to this service. You dig far and deep. Ten hours later you decide that a little outside help might be in order. Sometimes the answer is right there in front of you but you just can't see it. Some of us just have too muchon our plates. You post a legitimate server and networking question on SF. It's closed even though it fits the FAQ.

Who the heck is talking about using them for production. My question and a myriad of other questions on the subject have nothing whatsoever to do with using them on production. Is SF ONLY about software used on live production systems? If so, update the FAQ. That would pretty much define it, wouldn't it? Until then you can't exclude *AMPP juse 'cause in the elite world of live production server folk it is considered trash. It is a legitimate question about using a server tool (Apache) in the context of a professional networked environment. Anyhow, I'm done. I have work to do.

This guy seems to think the FAQ is important: meta.serverfault.com/questions/23/… and, funny enough, according to his not *AMPP questions ARE on-topic. Anyhow, I'm done. You can have your little club back. Continue as you were.