Same for me as well. The reason that we chose opsview over the competition was that there was only one version.
Maybe another way to raise more revenue would be to put up prices for support contracts on your web site. Currently, having no pricing up I think scares people off. I've seen your support offerings, but never asked how much they cost, they might be within my budget, but I've no idea. Having a more basic level of support, for no slaves, and no assisted upgrades, or even pay per case price list might help you get more paying customers. Start small then as they grow they will move up the service level. I'd have to say currently you do need to look quite hard to find that you do offer these services on your web site. Is this your main business, or a side revenue stream, if it's your main business then make it a lor more prominent on your web site? Regards, Dave Sykes Head of Engineering +44 (0)1252 740721 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Bechstein Sent: 29 May 2009 13:54 To: Opsview Users Subject: Re: [opsview-users] Moving towards two Opsview editions -Community and Enterprise Ditto, for me as well -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yates Ian Mr (ITCS) Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:50 AM To: Opsview Users Subject: Re: [opsview-users] Moving towards two Opsview editions - Community and Enterprise 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 _______________________________________________ Opsview-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opsview.org/listinfo/opsview-users The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. You must not read, copy, distribute or take any further action in relation to or reliance on this e-mail. Elateral will not, to the extent permitted by the law, accept responsibility or liability for the timeliness, accuracy or completeness of this e-mail or any attachments to it (unless specifically stated) nor for the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling code in it or in the attachments. Please be aware that e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Elateral Limited, Registered in England No. 3036315. Elateral House, Crosby Way, Farnham, Surrey GU9 7XX. VAT No. GB 742 577710 _______________________________________________ Opsview-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opsview.org/listinfo/opsview-users
