You made an excellent point here, david, and I fully agree. As a matter of fact, it seems that only very few people are actually using Zenpacks, so there must be something wrong with the concept. If people are not using a feature, it should be dropped, no matter how mathematically elegant the concept may be. Period.
There are many open issues than Zenpacks, such as stability, avoiding alerting storms, allowing to selectively disable inherited services, improving WBEM, continuity graphs, better customization without phthom programming, to name just a few areas. The only positive side of zenpacks is marketing. It sound great at first to have a mechanism to extend zenoss that does not need python programming skills, so that the community may eventually build a plethora of extensions. But to be successful, such a mechanism must be simple, well documented, must survive version changes and be easily transferablle between servers without too many side effects. Let´s face it. Zenpacks are not doing very well in any of these areas, aren´t they? That said, I still think zenoss is by far the most advanced and attractive open source NMS solution around. geotek.de (http://geotek.de) ------------------------ unset -------------------- m2f -------------------- Read this topic online here: http://community.zenoss.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10695#10695 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ zenoss-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
