There are some proposals related to computer software (Unix & Linux, Ubuntu) with more than 70 followers. Superuser has been already covering these topics. Is it proper to split Superuser into atoms and create lots of sites from it this way? IMHO, this is not the right direction. What do Stackexchange executives think about this?

  • Related (duplicate, but for SO): meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52379/…
    – Gnoupi
    Commented Jul 7, 2010 at 8:06
  • you could vote to close as "duplicate" which on Area 51 is explained as "This proposal would tend to drain audience from another Stack Exchange site."
    – Tobias Kienzler
    Commented Jul 7, 2010 at 8:37
  • I can only see the "flag" option. I don't think I can vote to close those proposals.
    – Mehper C. Palavuzlar
    Commented Jul 7, 2010 at 9:15
  • You need 2000 rep on Area 51 to be able to vote to close. Until then either just comment or if you're really bothered flag it.
    – ChrisF
    Commented Jul 7, 2010 at 9:44
  • 1
    See Robert's answer meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52379/… to the question @Gnoupi linked to.
    – ChrisF
    Commented Jul 7, 2010 at 9:47

2 Answers 2


I'm the creator of Unix & Linux (We're almost in the commit phase, and just need one more "off-topic" question).

My proposal doesn't overlap with Superuser. Your Superuser overlaps with my proposal ;)

I created Unix & Linux for several main reasons:

  1. I knew it would be a little controversial and confusing. I wanted to see what the community would do with this proposal. The SE community is omnipotent and can fix any and all conflicts ;)
  2. SO, SF and SU all have overlap themselves. Many basic sysadmin questions could be asked on either SF or SU. If I Google for system administration questions, I'm often led to SO, because SO itself contains many system administration questions which are left over from before SF or SU existed.
  3. The Trilogy sites are too broad., and are filled with noise. If I want to search for Linux or Unix questions, I don't want to have to wade through similar-but-irrelevant questions related to programming, Windows sysadmin questions, a PHP question which happened to be tagged 'Linux'.
  4. I keep remembering the simple elegance of Usenet, many years ago. It was often easy to ask questions and find answers to my questions. Today we have all of these these big, broad, cluttered web-forums where you could ask many different types of question. In the Usenet days, it all felt better organized. Posters were encouraged to post the question to the appropriate forum, like comp.unix, or comp.os.ms-windows or rec.arts.disney. Maybe I want Usenet with SE's superior moderation system.

Perhaps this isn't the best strategy. Perhaps Unix & Linux itself is too broad, and it would be better to create smaller facets like "Ubuntu", and "Shell-hackers" instead. However, that doesn't seem to be the direction that the community was headed.

  • Boo. Someone disagrees with me. Was it my poar gramer?
    – Stefan Lasiewski
    Commented Jul 13, 2010 at 17:33
  • Agreed! I would like to see the Unix & Linux SE site succeed, and think that all distros can fall under it too. It will be nice not to filter through all the noise; I mean, SU, SO and the rest are great, but the scope of Unix & Linux deserves it's own point of focus.
    – invert
    Commented Aug 2, 2010 at 7:26

Concerning duplicates on Area51 in general, see here.

I'm not a StackExchange Exec, but are you familiar with SuperUser? Sure, it gets questions, but it's not doing well - for various reasons. In another Meta discussion (forget where) it was quoted that Jeff and Joel have given up and no longer care about SuperUser.

SuperUser has become a catch-all for most everything "computer". As long as the proposal is viable (and if nessissary, the proposer defends it), I'm all for it, because it helps organize and undo the catch-all-ness of SuperUser.

  • 1
    @rlb.usa, a 'catch-all' site does not appeal too well, which I think is one of the fundamental strong points of GNU/Linux ideology: A solution for one purpose that does it well, is better than a solution that does many jobs poorly.
    – invert
    Commented Aug 2, 2010 at 7:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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