I understand that ISPConfig is designed for a specific use-case. Over the last couple days I've been reading a lot of forum posts where people ask about how to do specific things with the software. One example is Client-level access to multiple websites, about which I opened a ticket recently. I didn't post that without having already done a good amount of reading and today I was reading even more. In my ticket, I'm trying to get a final, definitive answer to a user problem that has existed for a decade. I'm not necessarily asking for a change to the software. I'm asking for "an answer" which could come in the form of documentation, which I would gladly write. (Please do not respond to that specific example. That's not the topic here. It's just an example of many threads that seem to repeatedly rehash the same topics in different ways.) I think what's happening with that example topic and others is that there are a number of undocumented core principles related to this product, understood by developers but not communicated to others. Without that basic understanding, newcomers continue to ask questions about doing things outside of that scope. That just results in numerous forum posts all dancing around the same topics, lots of "don't do that" "it doesn't work like that" responses, and I'm guessing some amount of aggravation by developers about why people don't understand that the software simply doesn't work like that. I think a solution to some of these FAQs is for some doc pages, um, FAQs, that step back to address the specific environments, use-cases, and activities for which ISPConfig is targeted. This will result in a different approach to a number of questions: "Go read these pages to understand how it works, read the suggestions, see what other people do, and if none of that applies then you can write an addon or use something else." So related to this Developers' Forum, I will ask you guys : Am I getting this right? Do you feel like there are too many people who simply don't get it? Do you feel like you're answering the same questions stated innumerable different ways? Yes, yes, we're always going to come back to "people don't read FAQs before asking questions". In recent discussions we have already moved beyond that. We're going to have new docs, and that will allow you to cordially direct people to the M for people to RTF. What I'm asking here is for you to really step out of your own shoes for a moment and tell us if you get the impression that there might be something about how this software works that is not intuitive. At some point maybe a light came on for you, and now questions that don't fit that model seem kinda stupid and aggravating? @till said this recently: That note was interesting to me because it was a response to my simple statement that ISPConfig is difficult to understand. That's my opinion. It's the opinion expressed in various reviews. Till's response, sorry man, was defensive with a pre-canned explanation for why people say ISPConfig is difficult to understand. I know what Plesk is but I've never seen it. I didn't mention Plesk or any other software. I was just talking about this software. "Different approach"? Different How? Is ISPConfig really different like Windows, macOS, and Linux? I had no idea. I feel like I'm missing something. That's what this thread is about - what do you mean by "approach to split services"? What do you mean by "logical approach" and "group functions"? Maybe if you can articulate this underlying concept about how ISPConfig components fit together in some cohesive way, the rest of us might get a better understanding of what to expect, and not. Thanks!