James Peel wrote: > What does everyone else think about think about the fork?
One of the basics of Free software is forking about. Take Nessus: one part of the team took it non-open. Fair enough, it's their code. The OpenVAS fork happened because many users did not want to follow them, but has yet to achieve a real feature-comparable status with the now-close-source Nessus. I don't think Nagios was going closed? Nagios has been utterly solid in my experience over 6 years, and I trust the main developer to a great extent. Of course, there are many irritations, due to the obsession with 'classic' style configuration (M4 etc): why else am I using Opsview for one level of monitoring? Easy configuration whilst maintaining light weight, together with improved reporting: that's why. But it is still Nagios underneath (or on top!). We are also running a Nagios site and I have no intention of stopping doing that - its configurations change very rarely. I have looked at all the other monitor systems I can find and made my choices (I also use Mon for some tasks). We are talking here of systems that monitor critical infrastructure. Thus they are themselves critical. A high level of trust is called for. Unless there are clear technical advantages to the fork, I would be very disinclined to do other than watch from a safe distance until I saw both a reason to switch and 5 years solid existence. That said, I have no idea why the split happened, nor time nor inclination to dig :) -- James Roberts Stabilys.com _______________________________________________ Opsview-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opsview.org/listinfo/opsview-users
