I couldn't say this better myself.
>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of j.roberts >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:10 AM >To: Opsview Users; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [opsview-users] Moving towards two Opsview >editions - Community and Enterprise > >James Peel wrote: > >> Please read this post and let us have your feedback, either on this >> list or privately via my email account. > >Both. > >> As a result of feedback from our customers, we are >considering a move >> towards providing two editions of Opsview, Community and Enterprise. > >I spent some time considering this rather than 'knee-jerking'. > >My conclusion: If this happens I will probably stop using >Opsview and return to Nagios. > >Rationale: > >1. Your website says: 'Fully Open Source with a single flavour >"Opsview Enterprise" ' > >This clearly shows that you have understood that the 'single >flavour' is a merit, and will appeal to users. So why are you >considering scrapping it? Would you not expect a consequence >of doing so? > >2. The reason I have for using Opsview rather than say >Groundworks is because you DO have one version only. Yes, and >also because I believe Opsview works better, because it is >closer to base Nagios. > >3. The principle reason I use Opsview (for some tasks) rather >than Nagios is the accessible configuration and the improved >reporting and graphing. The improved configuration is a >benefit for non-command-line colleagues, rather than for me. I >have no interest in other features currently. > >But there are disadvantages as well: it is significantly less >flexible than Nagios base, and the dependencies supported are >far less comprehensive than Nagios base (see my forum posting >03/03/2009 13:04 - > >'JR> Thanks for the reply. > JR > But they are not the same thing in Nagios... > TV You know, I never realised this existed.... > TV Sorry, you've right, I didn't look at your original query >enough.') > >The configuration and reporting/graphing improvements can be >facilitated by many add-ons for Nagios, so they are not >sufficient reason to continue using Opsview if I am forced >into a second-class-citizen position by a two-level release structure. > >4a. I have no interest whatsoever in bleeding-edge Network >Monitoring solutions. I use Debian (and CentOS) rather than >Fedora because they are NOT bleeding-edge. We are RedHat >resellers, and RedHat is what I sell to people that need >commercial support contracts. RedHat is antithetical to >bleeding-edge (it's so old that the cobwebs blow in the wind) >but it is reliable. > >So I find it difficult to believe in the first of your stated >reasons for the change: > >"To address the often conflicting needs of our community and >our enterprise customers (e.g. stability of code vs >introducing new features)" > >Who exactly *wants* an *unstable* network monitoring system? >Who *wants* 'early and often' in their monitoring? Not me. > >4b. The second reason is more germane, and I support your need >to do this, we all need to find a decent revenue stream from >O-S. However, potentially pissing-off your existing users is >perhaps not the best way to start. Is there not a better way? > >Please note that the original author never took this step - >and Opsview lives on his code base. > >4c. As to the final reason given: > >"To provide a stable, mature and predictable code base to >larger users, so that they can plan and execute upgrades more >efficiently" > >- I reiterate that stability and maturity are what is required >for the product to be useful *for all users*. This is not the >Linux kernel! > > >Overall, I would see this as a very bad move. I have of course been >expecting something of the sort (am I a cynic? Yes) ever since Opsera >bought Altinity. The potential of this sort of complication is >also why >we turned down earlier overtures from Altinity... > >Of course, there is no reason why this project could not be forked. Is >there? > >Um. Do you really want to go there? > > >Best wishes, > >-- > >James Roberts >Stabilys.com >_______________________________________________ >Opsview-users mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.opsview.org/listinfo/opsview-users > _______________________________________________ Opsview-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opsview.org/listinfo/opsview-users
