----- "John Hinton" webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Craig White wrote:
If you are going to go to multiple lists, might I suggest that you have 1 system-admins list and 1 general-users list and you can tightly
But I would like a bit more freedom on the sysadmin list. The ability to get more in depth on particulars and include discussions of other software which interacts with existing systems to aid in going further... extending Centos so to speak.
Do you think that by definition, the "system-admins" list should encompass that freedom? Linux system administration is not limited to bash scripting and configuring Apache virtual hosts, but also includes architecting multi-tiered, multi-faceted, multi-platform environments. I think the label of "system-admins" for a second list is going in the right direction. Maybe something a bit more specific, like CentOS-sysadmin-advanced? Not the best name, but conveys my idea. The understanding on that list is that the application of CentOS in real world environments can and should also be discussed.
Eh? Yes, no, maybe?
-Ken
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:18 -0500, Kenneth Price wrote:
----- "John Hinton" webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Craig White wrote:
If you are going to go to multiple lists, might I suggest that you have 1 system-admins list and 1 general-users list and you can tightly
But I would like a bit more freedom on the sysadmin list. The ability to get more in depth on particulars and include discussions of other software which interacts with existing systems to aid in going further... extending Centos so to speak.
Do you think that by definition, the "system-admins" list should encompass that freedom? Linux system administration is not limited to bash scripting and configuring Apache virtual hosts, but also includes architecting multi-tiered, multi-faceted, multi-platform environments. I think the label of "system-admins" for a second list is going in the right direction. Maybe something a bit more specific, like CentOS-sysadmin-advanced? Not the best name, but conveys my idea. The understanding on that list is that the application of CentOS in real world environments can and should also be discussed.
Eh? Yes, no, maybe?
---- since I brought it up, I will elucidate my thinking...
There are many users who are drawn to the 'enterprise' aspect of CentOS that are likely maintaining more than 1 CentOS system and use the list for more work related topics and are more put off by the tangential discussions. For obvious reasons, CentOS is not going to call it an 'enterprise' mail list and I was thinking that a list for 'system-admins' says much same thing in a much less competitive way.
The second list of 'users' would not need to be held to a tight standard of on-topic discussions and could, should, would embrace those less experienced in open source software customs and etiquette.
That said, I'm not sure that we need 2 lists but since Karanbir raised the topic, I thought I would guide it towards what I feel makes the most sense.
Craig
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:18:42AM -0500, Kenneth Price wrote:
----- "John Hinton" webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
But I would like a bit more freedom on the sysadmin list. The ability to get more in depth on particulars and include discussions of other software which interacts with existing systems to aid in going further... extending Centos so to speak.
Do you think that by definition, the "system-admins" list should encompass that freedom? Linux system administration is not limited to bash scripting and configuring Apache virtual hosts, but also includes architecting multi-tiered, multi-faceted, multi-platform environments. I think the label of "system-admins" for a second list is going in the right direction. Maybe something a bit more specific, like CentOS-sysadmin-advanced? Not the best name, but conveys my idea.
To be honest, I don't think this list should be split. Instead it should be more rigorously policed. This should be a list about CentOS, and working with CentOS.
Generic SA type stuff (how do you do "this generic task" in script) should not be present here; there's already enough SA type lists out there. Similarly, Apache configuration shouldn't be here... although interaction between Apache and SELinux probably _should_. CentOS specific questions should be particularly welcome (which would, therefore, also include discussion of "features" from upstream).
I guess a rule of thumb could be "if the question and answer is materially unchanged if the OS is CentOS or Debian or Solaris or *BSD then it doesn't belong here."
But that's just my opinion.
Stephen Harris wrote:
To be honest, I don't think this list should be split. Instead it should be more rigorously policed.
I have to disagree strongly with that, since policing generally wastes everyone's time with more noise that it manages to control and there will (and should) always be an influx of new users who won't understand arcane rules.
This should be a list about CentOS, and working with CentOS.
Generic SA type stuff (how do you do "this generic task" in script) should not be present here; there's already enough SA type lists out there.
But the way you administer Centos or any RH-like system is very much different than the way you administer other systems. Anything that involves yum, rpm, chkconfig, system, system-config-*, or the various bits squirreled away under /etc/sysconfig are pretty system-specific and if the right answer involves them (as most SA tasks do) you'll get the wrong answer on a generic SA list. There's also the problem that if you mention the application versions you are running on Centos, the answer in any other forum will be "update to current..." which only rarely is the right thing to do.
Similarly, Apache configuration shouldn't be here... although interaction between Apache and SELinux probably _should_.
Or the bits that various system-specific packages splat into /etc/httpd/conf.d.
CentOS specific questions should be particularly welcome (which would, therefore, also include discussion of "features" from upstream).
I guess a rule of thumb could be "if the question and answer is materially unchanged if the OS is CentOS or Debian or Solaris or *BSD then it doesn't belong here."
If you have to ask a question, there is almost no chance that you will know if that is true about the answer or not. But even if you did, the missing piece is something that covers best practices or how to do things on Red Hat-like systems. There's not much that is really Centos-specific but a lot that applies across fedora, RH, and its rebuilds.
To be honest, I don't think this list should be split. Instead it should be more rigorously policed. This should be a list about CentOS, and working with CentOS.
Hi
Rigorous policing in this context is counter productive. Specifically in three areas
1. The person or group enforcing the rules will find that in a short space of time that it is emotionally draining to always be seen as the enforcer of the rules. And these people are already doing a lot of volunteer work.
2. The person making the request may in future have a legitimate topic for discussion / assistance and not post simply because of the previous
3. The list has to watch / record all this "telling off"
I guess what is beginning to bug me is that a number of people seem to be saying just police the list better and it will be fine. But I don't see most of these people volunteering to be active member of this police force.
Personally I have loved the fact that with this list as long as you are seen to have put some thought / effort into a question or issue you get helpful responses or at least responses that make you think. And because of this I have been guilty of bringing up some topics of discussion that are probably way off topic. That being said I can understand why people don't want to deal with the "extra" stuff. So lets create the alternate list so that all the people who see value in these "off topic discussion" can have them without imposing it on the others
And I hope that once this is in place we use persuasion and positive re-enforcement to encourage the lists to be used as intended. If we have a set of rules that we religiously enforce then both lists are doomed to fail as more effort will go into this enforcement than into providing useful information to people.
-
Clint Dilks -
Craig White -
Kenneth Price -
Les Mikesell -
Stephen Harris