and i should add, SO has the opposite mantra to SF. Encourage new users, give an impression that it's ok to ask dumb questions if you're new, and generally lower the barrier of entry to new developers. I don't want to say this kind of thing is why sysadmins have a bad reputation, but it's no coincidence in my mind that SO is so popular and SF is dying. Who wants to contribute to a site that gives the impression of being better-than-thou ?

@JourneymanGeek i would definitely say SF is a hostile site. There's an air of elitism combined with a higher barrier of entry than other SE sites, which drives new users away. The problem is SF and SU effectively split on professional / non-professional, which is doomed to fail, as its an overly vague distinction.

+1 this. We use it in part because of vagrant. We even use NAT and host-only on those (the lan is mac white-listed (and yes, i know that's retarded)). Just because an individual sysadmin doesn't use VirtualBox does not mean it's off topic for a professional forum, any more than asking about dsl modems just because "mostly" homes use them.

@chrisS, did you mean to say "SF is for the tactical discussion of security, whereas the IT security site is for the strategic discussion of security" ?

You can put me in the "or wants to" category, theLQ.