daviz00 wrote: > The difference here is that Zenoss is still entering maturity. It's like test > driving a car while its still at the factory then complaining because the > roof wasnt put on yet. You cant judge quality until its completed.
I don't know that I'd go that far with that analogy. ;-) Truth be told, code will continually get polished and get new features added. When it hits that wall of no further development, it's either small enough (eg, a plugin) that all the notable gaps have been closed and the needed features are there, or it has fallen into disuse. Or worse still, the owner has moved on and nobody has stepped up to take over. bithajcsar wrote: > But if you will release code requiring further improvement and correction of > broken features, you will close doors to enterprise market themselvs. When > all is about time, money and reliability far above 99.7%, there is no time to > dig into SW intended to provide necessary services. Unfortunately, in this > environment I have to prefer reliability and ability to work "out-of-the-box" > to innovative features. > Any non-trivial piece of code will have bugs. A well known example is Windows: even though bugs are still being discovered, people still use it. And I would argue that the Windows codebase is quite a bit larger than Zenoss, but they also have quite a few more resources (and marketing spin) to throw at it. Anyway, you seem convinced that Zenoss isn't for you. I wish you well on your quest for a "bug free" network monitoring system. -------------------- m2f -------------------- Read this topic online here: http://community.zenoss.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=17361#17361 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ zenoss-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
