I'm a relatively new zenoss user and have decided to not recommend zenoss to my organization. Why?
Not because zenoss is bad. Not because I don't see potential. But because it just isn't worth it to sort through all the problems to get a viable monitoring system. Also, the zenoss team tends to release plugins and patches that have had absolutely no testing. The ZenJMX plugin is an example of this. If you release something as buggy as this why not mark it as an alpha or beta plugin? Why not state that it has not be tested or used in a production environment? Why advertise it as a functional addition to zenoss? I've wasted hours trying to find out why certain things weren't working when all I needed was to know nothing has been tested. Then there are all the what ifs. What if I work out tons of the bugs and finally get a nice production system ready to monitor and the hard drive dies before I can get a chance to do a backup? There goes hours of not days of work lost because I decided to use zenoss in it's current condition. I think the devs/management should be more open about the current state of zenoss and its plugins instead of using potential users who try zenoss as the QA team. And if there is an open problem or question on the forums at least respond with "We don't know" or "We acknowledge this problem". But again and again I see unanswered questions. Ok rant over. -------------------- m2f -------------------- Read this topic online here: http://community.zenoss.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18233#18233 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ zenoss-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
