On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:18:42AM -0500, Kenneth Price wrote: > ----- "John Hinton" <webmaster at 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. -- rgds Stephen