I have seen that people recommend asking networking-related questions on Server Fault. Wouldn't there be enough interest to have a site dedicated only to networking questions? Something like "Link Failure" or "Request Timed Out".

Since network and system administration can be two different positions, good net administrators may be more inclined to hang around a site dedicated to them.

What do you guys think?

  • 12
    Crap. My network is down. I wish I could get to that networking site to help me figure out how to fix it.
    – tvanfosson
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 11:30
  • @tvanfosson - such site would need to be on a fixed ip as easy as Google DNS ones, clearly.
    – Gnoupi
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 12:41
  • @tvanfosson: How did you break through to visit THIS site?
    – user136634
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 12:47
  • 1
    @Developer Art he is stealing WLAN from his neighbour.
    – Pekka
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 14:00
  • 1
    There's no place like :)
    – user50049
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 14:50
  • 4
    Historical note: Network Engineering was created in 2013. Commented Apr 8, 2023 at 22:56

4 Answers 4


I think it would be too specific to achieve the necessary critical mass, and to have a chance to compete with Serverfault.

I'm not a sysadmin nor a network engineer though (I hang around SO mostly) so I can be wrong.

  • OK, the "too specific to achieve the necessary critical mass" is the bit that answers my question. Do you think Server Fault may grow to the point where this would change, or it will always be too narrow a focus topic? Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 15:13
  • @Prof I personally think SF as a whole definitely could reach critical mass, as SO arguably has for programming, if well tended to. The management seems to be confident as well. See lengthy discussion: Super User and Server Fault are Doomed
    – Pekka
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 15:18
  • Thanks for the link, that certainly put things into perspective. I agree it's not the best time for yet another site. Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 17:31
  • @Prof you're welcome. I misread you a bit, I thought you were contemplating starting an own site through Stackexchange. But what's said is probably valid nonetheless.
    – Pekka
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 18:20

Maybe server admins and network admins are sometimes different people; but oftentimes, they are also one and the same. Having two different sites might pull them to one or the other, but probably not both.

Network admins are already served by Server Fault; so what if there are also server-related questions? I'm not complaining about Java questions on Stack Overflow, even though I don't use Java.

I see no value in further fragmenting the user base of the trilogy.


Networking questions happen in two situations, in my opinion: at work (Server Fault), or at home (Super User).

I think it's quite covered.


We could fragment the life out of these sites if we wanted to:

  • System admins
  • Network engineers
  • Help desk
  • IT management
  • DBA

And for programming

  • Coding
  • Design
  • Architecture
  • Consulting
  • Contracting
  • QA
  • Computer Science

It's good that we have a line between programming and sys admins, but I wouldn't want to divide things up more.

  • 2
    Actually, I'd vote for a Coding site.
    – nb69307
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 13:22
  • 2
    And we could have migration system between all of them, to send questions away to others, and it would feel just like workplace!
    – Gnoupi
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 13:24
  • 1
    @Gnoupi - only instead of automatically migrating it would just say "You're on the wrong site" and then ignore you.
    – user27414
    Commented Apr 7, 2010 at 13:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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